United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit

Office of the Circuit Executive P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, Ca 94119-3939

Re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

-- Dated: June 17, 2017 @ 2:56am [pst] ---

Kato of the District Court following this Courts denial of Dandridge-Barnetts Petition

for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc on June 02, 2017 in which such ruling was
subjected to the District Courts ruling (outside of law):
1. On June 02, 2017 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order
that denied both the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
2. On June 12, 2017 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit placed the
judgment of November 23, 2016 to be in effect as of June 12, 2017.
3. Neither the Orders or Mandate addressed any of the 1issues 2raised within
Plaintiff s filings at District Court or within Plaintiff s Petition for Panel Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc.
The United States maintains several and various civil rights laws that are to
protect its citizens, residents, and immigrants from obstruction of those rights and free
personhood in and out of businesses. Some of the laws that are to aid in the preventative
measure against discrimination are 42 USC 1981, 42 USC 1985 [3], 42 USC 1986, 28
USC 1331, 28 USC 1343, California Civil Code 51, California Constitution Declaration of
Rights, Article 1 Section I, California Civil Code 52, 14th Amendment, 18 USC 241, Civil

1
Defendant as matter of law and lawful procedure must always state a non-discriminatory reason for
the adverse action to rebut the inferences of discrimination raised by Plaintiff. See Murrell v. Ocean
Mecca Motel, Inc. 262 F.3d 253, 257, 258 (4th Cir 2001); Christian v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 252 F3d 862,
879 (6th Cir. 2001); Wells v. Burger King Corp., 40 F. Supp 2d 1366, 1368 (MD Fla 1998).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
2
A Defendants defense must be by clear and convincing evidence. See Environ Prods., Inc. v. Furon
Co., 215 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

1 of 5
Rights Act of 1964 Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. The United States
Federal Circuit never addressed the invalidation of Barnes and Noble, incs., Motion as
such motion never met the caveats or requirements necessary to forward itself effectively
-- it was an empty Motion. The United States Federal Circuit never addressed the
Appellants filings within its court that noted all applicable law earlier noted in the
District Court and further highlighted in the Federal Circuit.
The question presented is: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit erred in denying Appellants (Krista Dandridge-Barnett) Appeal while
upholding Appellees (Barnes and Noble, inc.,) Motion.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
In California the Unruh Civil Rights Act, or Unruh Act.... applies to all
business establishments of every kind... Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include
bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers... The Unruh Act prohibits all types of
arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition. The Unruh Act
also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin,
physical attributes, and individual beliefs Discrimination in the United States
is prohibited, 42 USC 1981, 42 USC 1985 [3], 42 USC 1986, 28 USC 1331, 28 USC
1343, California Civil Code 51, California Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 1
Section I, California Civil Code 52, 14th Amendment, 18 USC 241, Civil Rights Act of
1964 Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.

STATEMENT
The United States of America and the territories thereof have throughout the
course of years enacted laws to aid in the protection of Civil Rights for all within
such jurisdiction. California, a state within the United States, has even further
clarified the laws and protections of Civil Rights by enacting what is known as the
Unruh 3Civil Rights law or statute which is there to assure the peoples of the state

3
The United States District Court failed to realize the matter of Shoshana Hebshi v. United States of
America [4:13-cv-10253-TGB-LJM] there is mentioned in the 'Order DENYING Defendant's Motions...."
where it is reiterated that in order "to survive a motion to dismiss, a [Plaintiff's] complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556, US 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544, 555
2 of 5
 that they are free to enter any open to the public commercial enterprise without the
fear of discrimination, intimidation or harassment. The Unruh further clarifies that
if such rights are infringed upon, the victim has a legal right to pursue such
commercial enterprise to be remedied in the court[s] of law. See 4California
Constitution Declaration of Rights.

A. Ignored by the District Court and the 9th Circuit was the letter from
the Office of the Attorney General, Kamala Harris, for the State of California to
the Petitioner, Krista Dandridge-Barnett in which responded to my complaint
against Barnes and Noble, inc.,.
B. The Defendants failure to comply with FRCP 11(b) has given rise to
the prejudices against the policy favouring the disposition of the case on the
merits. In Ash 739, F2d at 494 the District Court issued an Order to Show' that
facts be presented. However, in Dandridge-Barnett v. Barnes and Noble, inc., the
District Court and Federal Circuit refused to issue an 'Order to Show Cause' or an
'Injunction' to the Defendant in as to demand a 5defense.

American-Negroes are afforded the same rights as others in the United
States of America. For hundreds of years there has been a perpetual denying of
rights to American-Negroes even throughout the legal system. The Federal
District and Circuit Court has refused to uphold various laws, statutes, and case

(2007). A claim is facially plausible when Plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to
reasonably infer that the Defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. (citing Twombly, 550 US at
556). When assessing whether a Plaintiff has set forth a "plausible" claim, the District Court must
accept all of the [Plaintiff's] complaint's factual allegations as true. See Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., Inc.,
249 F 3d 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2001).
4
http://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article_1.html
5
The District and Federal Circuit Court erred in understanding that although many suggest that it is
difficult to prove racial and/or class [or another form of] discrimination, it is the Defendant's burden to
be one of production and not of persuasion. In other words, the Defendant needs to articulate a
legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action to rebut the inferences of discrimination
raised by the Plaintiff. See Murrell v. Ocean Mecca Motel, Inc., 262 F.3d 253, 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2001).
Outside literature on OSC: Order to show cause (O.S.C.) is a demand of a judge for a party to justify,
explain or prove why the court should or should not grant a motion. For example: if a party request a
restraining order from a judge, the judge may feel he or she needs more information before deciding
and issues an order to show cause. Morehouse v. Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. Circuit Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. February 14, 1910, 177 F. 337. Headnote: An "order to show cause" is but a means
prescribed by law in the nature of a process to bring defendant into court to answer Plaintiff's demands
3 of 5
 history in 6support of Petitioner whilst upholding unlawful "charter' in support of 7
Defendant. 8A Defendants defense must be by clear and convincing evidence. A
Federal Court observed, "Racial profiling of any kind is [an] anathema.

C. The District Court and the 9th Circuit also refused to address
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: 9Subject-Matter jurisdiction is the authority of court to
hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For
instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. 10
Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which
is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and
territorial jurisdiction. which is the power of the court to render a judgment
concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike
personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be
waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is
forever a nullity. To decide a case, a court must have a combination subject
(subjectum) and either personal (personam, or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.
Subject-matter. jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction. and adequate notice
are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.

THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE RULING
The District and Federal Circuit Courts decisions disregard laws
pertaining to Civil Rights and introduces a lackadaisical method of how not to
apply legal procedure when presenting a motion. The other negative impact of

6
"Any sua sponte dismissal with prejudice is error unless "the plaintiffs cannot win relief." Wong v
Bell, 642 F. 2d 359, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1981). In determining the sufficiency of a pro se Complaint the
Court must construe the facts stated in the Complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972).
7
Defendant in Civil Rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs, but personal
involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and
acquiescence. See Figures v. Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan D Kan 1990, 731 F Supp
1479.
8
Environ Prods., Inc. v. Furon Co., 215 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
9
Plaintiff has satisfied FRCP 8, FRCP 12(b) and all legal requirements necessary to pursue the case
against Barnes and Noble, Inc. It is clear that Barnes and Noble, Inc., has not at any time satisfied any
laws, or legal requirement necessary for their 'Motion to Dismiss' to survive as such Motion was
empty, null and void.
10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_jurisdiction
4 of 5
the District and Federal Circuit Courts decisions open the gateway of
discrimination of any kind to be justified based upon the Dandridge-Barnett v.
Barnes and Noble, inc., as a case-history point of reference.
It is becoming clearer everyday to the American-Negroes of the United
States that laws in which were originally designed to protect American-Negroes
or even to purportedly secure our rights have strategically been placed within
other classifications of individuals that havent been impacted by the
American-Negro Struggle yet benefit from the laws. The District Court and the
9th Circuit have 11wronged justice for the American-Negroes in this case; all of
12
the judges should have voluntarily recused themselves from this case.
What is happening in the United States of America is a culture of
political-correctness pertaining to how professionals or politicians publicly profess
to be non-discriminatory towards American-Negroes, but when certain issues are
addressed in an effort for any violator to be held accountable then the professors
purportedly on the side of justice for American-Negroes negate their words. It is a
disgrace! Will American-Negroes as a group of various peoples indigenous (or
forced) to this land (the Americas) ever see justice in the United States of America?
The jury is still out on that.
--- The term American-Negro is an appropriate term as to clearly make a
distinction between the ill-treatments (as a whole) that doesnt appear to reflect in
percentages within the justice-system others who are also classified as Black.
The American-Negro is in Prisoner of War status in 13own land. The American
Negro is the least respected of all -- which includes various other Blacks. ---
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff-Appellant has satisfied all legal requirements and yet the judges
ruled against all laws in support of Plaintiff-Appellant to illegitimately favour
Defendant (absent of the law).

Respectfully Submitted /s/ Krista Dandridge-Barnett
Krista Dandridge-Barnett @ 41770 Margarita Road 2004, Temecula, Ca 92591

11
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
12
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144
13
The Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own
land. -Martin Luther King, jr.
5 of 5