Supplemental Brief — Christopher Hadsell, Petitioner v. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, et al.

No. 24-467

In the Supreme Court of the Anited States

oF PLR 2 Ne

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES HADSELL,

Deceased,

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Petitioner,

-y-

CATHERINE ISHAM,

Respondent.

—— +

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of California

¢

PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

¢

Service on California Attorney General Required by

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.29(c)

¢

Christopher Hadsell

Petitioner In Propria Persona

9000 Crow Canyon Rd., S-399,

Danville, CA 94506

@ (925) 482-6502 @ CJHadsellLaw@gmail.com

eee Ee

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS .........0..ccc cece i

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............000000.... il

III. JUDGMENT BELOW .............0..ccceceeeee 1

IV. PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEF secenesccesneessrescsssnsrarnvrcasmesausseacuswcrnes 1

A. ItTIs Now BEYOND ANY REASONABLE

DOUBT THAT THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIARY IS

UTILIZING PRETEXT TO DENY ACCESS TO

ITS COURTS woeceeccccccscsccssscsssssecssssssssssccssssssseesseees 1

V. CONCLUSION dcecssesssicscicrassrcasracssccsaseacces 3

APPENDICES

Court Opinions:

Appendix A

IDCA: 12/4/24 JDMTT ue eee eececeeeeesneeerseeeesensnees la

rH

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

USS. Const. amend. [ouccccccecccccccsccesessecseccesssscsevesseesenseeees 2

II. JUDGMENT BELOW

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First

Appellate District’s (‘1DCA”) judgment is reproduced

as follows:

Judgment (12/4/24) scisicsccsssessecssuscsccavaccnsenvasaccvonvaceass la.

IV.PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEF

A. ITIS NOW BEYOND ANY

REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE

CALIFORNIA JUDICIARY IS UTILIZING

PRETEXT TO DENY ACCESS TO ITS

COURTS

Subsequent to the 10/25/24 Docketing of Hadsell’s

Writ of Certiorari, regarding another matter in the

case below (Superior Court of California, Contra Costa

County (“Trial Court”), case no.: P22-00643),

Petitioner, Christopher Hadsell (“Hadsell”), filed an

appeal to two appealable interlocutory orders on

11/4/24, “11/4/24 Appeal”.

The 11/4/24 Appeal proceedings are at the notice-ofappeal stage; therefore, no merits arguments or

briefing are yet before 1DCA.

Notwithstanding, prematurely, and solely because of

the undisputed legal nullity that Hadsell is listed on

the California Vexatious Litigant List, on 11/19/24,

1DCA required Hadsell to file an Application to File

New Litigation.

Pursuant to 1DCA’s directive, on 11/20/24, Hadsell

filed an Application to File New Litigation.

1DCA responded with a decision entered 12/4/24,

“12/4/24 JDMT”, p. 1a.

The 12/4/24 JDMT states:

Application for permission to appeal is denied.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable

possibility his appeal has merit.

This is a bizarre ruling because there are no merits

arguments or briefs before the court.

Here, because there are no merits arguments or briefs

before the court, what this bizarre’ ruling

demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that

the California Judiciary simply uses boilerplate

pretext regarding the merits of a so-called vexatious

litigant’s pleading to deny access to its courts.

Ineluctably, such action violates the U.S. Const.

amend. I’s right to redress of grievances—a central

issue in Hadsell’s Writ of Certiorari docketed 10/25/24.

! The 12/4/24 JDMT (p. 1a) begins with the sentence, “Hadsell was

designated a vexatious litigant by the Contra Costa County Superior Court

in May [sic] 2016 and is subject to a prefiling order.”.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court should grant the Petition.

Respectfully submitted,

wi (hrsfopher —Hadgell

Christopher Hadsell, Petitioner

December 14, 2024

la

Appendix A

1DCA: 12/4/24 JDMT

Court of Appeal, First Appellate District

Charles D. Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer

Electronically FILED on 12/4/2024 by S, Diener, Deputy Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

Estate of CHARLES RICHARD

HADSELL, Deceased.

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL, A171758

Plaintiff and Appellant,

(Contra Costa County

v. Super. Ct. No. P22-00643)

CATHERINE ISHAM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Christopher Hadsell was designated a vexatious litigant by the Contra

Costa County Superior Court in-May 2016 and is subject to a prefiling order.

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391, 391.7.)

On November 4, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to

appeal two orders issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court on

October 31, 2024.

On November 22, 2024, Hadsell submitted an application seeking

permission to appeal. His application referred us to his “Notice of Motion and

Motion to Vacate Prefiling Order and Vexatious-Litigant Order, and to

Remove Him from the Judicial Council's List of Vexatious Litigants,” which

he separately filed with the court on November 20, 2024.

Application for permission to appeal is denied. Appellant has failed to

demonstrate a reasonable possibility his appeal has merit. (Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 391.7, subd. (b); Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536,

541, 544: In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1349

fn.8.) The appeal is dismissed, and the matter is deemed complete in this

court.

2a

Further, Hadsell’s November 20, 2024 motion described above — which

is not properly before this court (see Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8, subd. (a)

[requiring application to vacate prefiling order and to have named removed

from list of vexatious litigants to be filed in the court that entered the order])

— is denied as moot.

Dated: 12/04/2024 Humes, A.P.J. APJ.