Case Number: BS143712 Hearing Date: April 17, 2014 Dept: 1

#4 – Taylor v. Harris, et al. (BS 143 712)

On March 7, 2014, this court found that Petitioner Kirell Taylor is a vexatious litigant under the meaning of CCP § 391(b). The court also found that the court clerk had mistakenly filed this case without the pre-filing order required by CCP § 391.7(b). Accordingly, the court automatically stayed this action and noticed an April 17, 2014 Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Dismissal for Failure to Comply with the terms of CCP § 391.7(c) in Department 1. The court further stated that this case would be automatically dismissed if the Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of CCP § 391.7(c).

On March 25, 2014, the court received by mail the Petitioner’s response to the OSC. The response consists of a four-page, handwritten letter, accompanied by a handwritten proposed pleading entitled, “VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO AND WRIT FOR COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS.”

This special proceeding has been denominated a Petition for Quo Warranto, i.e., a writ to inquire by what authority a public office holder proceeded against the petitioner. The proceeding has been directed against what seem to be all of the judicial officers that presided over the Petitioner’s LA 033 959 criminal case. Those judicial officers are as follows:

• Leland B. Harris;
• Leslie A. Dunn;
• Michael Hoff;
• Sandy Kriegler;
• Michelle Rosenblatt;
• Martin L. Herscovitz.

Assuming arguendo the validity of the Petition, these judicial officers would be enjoined by the court to produce for the Petitioner certified copies of their judicial commissions. The Petitioner is requesting the judicial commissions directly from those judicial officers because his requests of the California Secretary State and the Department of Justice appear to have been denied.

The Petition in this instance does not establish by way of any alleged ultimate facts that certified judicial commissions are being improperly withheld from the Petitioner. The Petitioner offers up with his Petition photocopies of letters from the California Secretary of State and the Department of Justice informing him that no such “commissions” are recorded by those offices. The Petitioner also fails to put forward any concrete facts that would indicate that the court has improperly withheld such “commissions” or that those commissions would have any bearing on the final validity of his criminal case’s outcome. Such facts would presumably be necessary for the Petitioner to offer up regardless of whether his Petition is deemed one for Quo Warranto. Hence, the Petitioner has not shown that case BS 143 712 has any merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay, as required by CCP § 391.7.

The case is thus hereby dismissed.