Pro Se We Stand

No.  17-8641
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Marina J Boyd
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
vs.
California Supreme Court
RESPONDENT
CitiMortgage, Inc. Real Party at Interest
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marina J Boyd
10951 National Blvd., #302
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Petitioner/Plaintiff in Pro Per
California Supreme Court
450 McAlister Street
San Francisco, California 94101
Respondent Court
Cathy Granger, Esq.
Wolfe & Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, #300
Irvine, California 92612
Attorney for CitiMortgage
Real Party at Interest
California 2nd District
Court of Appeals
300 S. Spring St, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Page 2
INDEX OF APENDICIES

Page 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U. S. Supreme Court Rule 10(c)
Jean v. Nelson
Arizona v. Evans, 514 US 1 – Supreme Court 1995
Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 5 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992)
McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir.1987)
Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th Cir.1998)
Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 n. 10 (9th Cir.1995)
Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, 2003
Sun-Mate Corp v. Koolatron Corp, Dist. Court, CD California 2011 2011
Durham v. Lindus Construction, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2009
Siddique v. Macy’s, 2013
Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1997
Highlands Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027, 1032 (5th Cir. 1994)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 1975
FLESHNER v. PEPOSE VISION INSTITUTE, PC, 2010
Railey v. Webb, 2008
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488 – Supreme Court 1974
PUBLIC UTILITY COM’N v. Cities of Harlingen, 2010
Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 US 765 – Supreme Court 2002
Stonecipher v. Poplar Bluff R1 School Dist., 2006).
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35 – Supreme Court 1975
Liteky v. U.S., 510
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)
Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 US 765 – Supreme Court 2002
Collins v. Dixie Transport, Inc., 1989

Page 4
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658 – Supreme Court 1978
St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988);
L. A. Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 890 (9th Cir. 1990)
Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 1991)
Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992)
Thompson v. Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1989).

Page 5
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Was the Los Angeles Superior Court ruling GRANTING Summary
Judgment against Petitioner a violation of Petitioner’s right to a trial by
jury and trial before a fair tribunal?
2. Was the California Court of Appeals dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal, and
refusal to vacate the dismissal upon Petitioners properly submitted motion,
when the Court routinely vacates the dismissal of appeals for appellants
with identical circumstances as Petitioner, a violation of Petitioner’s right
to equal protection under the law?
3. Whether the law providing unqualified Absolute Immunity to California
judges is out of proportion with the immunities offered to other public
servants in our free and fair society and an inherent threat to the
constitutional rights of litigant to a fair tribunal?
4. Whether Summary Judgment laws, combined with Absolute immunity for
Judges, as implemented in California and across the Country, are a
Violation of Plaintiffs right to Due Process, and jury trial?

Page 6
OPINIONS BELOW
The Los Angeles Superior Court issued it’s ruling on May 25, 2016. Petitioner
filed a timely appeal, which was dismissed on January 5, 2017. Petitioner timely
filed a motion to vacate the dismissal with the California Court of Appeals on
February 6, 2017 which the Court received on February 6, 2017, but did not file
for reason which are not explained in the record, or otherwise. On April 14, 2017,
the California Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion to vacate the dismissal,
but did not provide statutory support for their ruling. On May 2, 2017, Petitioner
timely filed a Petition for Rehearing with the California Court of Appeals, however
the California Court of Appeals refused to file the Petition for Rehearing stating
they did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition. On May 25, 2017, petitioner
filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, the California
Supreme Court issued a Summary Denial on July 12, 2017. All opinions of the
California Appeals Court and California Supreme Court are unpublished and
unreported.

Page 7
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Amendment XIV Sec. 1 provides in part that “No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. In this case, there is no dispute about the loss of property
or how the loss occurred, however the result demonstrates that throughout the
proceedings, the Petitioner was denied any meaningful finding of fact, or weighing
of evidence which led to Petitioner being deprived of any remedy for loss at the
hands of another.
The US Supreme Court has not recently examined whether or not the extensive
procedural road blocks which exist to a jury trial in a civil matter in California,
have grown to the extent where it violates the constitutional rights of litigants, in
particularly indigent (and/or pro se litigants), or whether the State has so
departed from a proper or consistent implication of their procedures so as to
facilitate tyranny and oppression.

Page 8
JURISDICTION
The California Supreme Court issued is summary denial of review in this matter
on July 12, 2017, and this Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed October 10,
2017. Petitioner is requesting review of a decree rendered by the highest court of
the State of California in which a decision could be had, therefore this Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) to review by Writ of Certiorari to examine
the validity of California statutes which are repugnant to the Constitution,
treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or
immunity.

Page 9
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a case of conversion of personal property, where Respondent refused to
allow Petitioner access to a locked facility under their control for the purpose of
retrieving personal property following a foreclosure, eviction and lockout. The
evidence in this case includes phone and e-mail records to Respondent’s
designated agent, showing the multiple contacts by Petitioner requesting access
to retrieve her personal property. After four years of litigation, a Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge granted Summary Judgment for the Respondent/Defendant
in this case. The Court ruling cited the relevant statutes and provisions of
California law regarding handling of personal property following an eviction,
however, upon close examination, the ruling ignores the fact that the
Respondent/Defendant never followed any of those provisions, the ruling also
misstates the facts and evidence in the record, and ultimately provides NO
statutory support for why the Respondent/Defendant was not liable for
Petitioner/Plaintiff’s loss.
The Summary Judgment ruling included the COURT, weighing of evidence,
weighing credibility of witnesses and making findings of material fact, all of which
are functions reserved for a jury, which was DEMANDED by Petitioner/Plaintiff
in this case.
Following Summary Judgment, Petitioner/Plaintiff timely appealed. The record
demonstrates that the California Court of Appeals failed to follow California
Statute in the handling of Petitioners fee waivers, in dismissing Petitioners
appeal, in refusing to vacate the dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal upon timely
motion, and in refusing to exercise jurisdiction to hear Petitioners petition for

Page 10
rehearing, all in violation of Petitioners constitutional right to due process and
equal protection under the law and a fair tribunal.
Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court, and
their summary denial did not address any of the issues of merit or procedure
raised by Petitioner.

Page 11
PARTIES TO PROCEEDING:
Marin J Boyd, Plaintiff/Petitioner
10951 National Blvd., #302
Los Angeles, California 90064
CitiMortgage, Inc. Defendant/Respondent
c/o Cathy Granger, Esq.
Wolfe & Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 300
Irvine, California 92612
California Supreme Court
450 McAlistair Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
California Court of Appeals 2nd District
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Los Angeles Superior Court
West District
1725 S. Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401

Page 12
REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
I present this Writ of Certiorari seeking the Courts relief in what may be
the most SHOCKING case of denial of due process, equal protection and Fair
Tribunal you’ve ever witnessed in a civil case. The constitutional and statutory
violations are so overwhelming, that you might find yourself searching through
this petition to figure out what you’re missing. But I assure you, you’re not
missing anything. This is what actually happened, and egregious violation of my
rights at each stage of the proceeding serves as validation that the previous acts
and orders were erroneous.
The Court may sometimes grants certiorari because a lower court’s
decision is perceived as conflicting directly with controlling Supreme Court
precedents, see S. Ct. R. 10(c), A fairly blatant disregard of Supreme Court
precedent is generally necessary to induce the Court to grant certiorari
based on a claimed conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court has
confirmed repeatedly the steps in the litigation process which constitutional
violations, these cases are indicated in this petition. “Nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ‘These provisions
are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction.
(Jean v. Nelson).
If the Court finds the conversion of Personal Property tolerable, without
liability for damages, and with the denial of damages being in the hands of a single
judge, where the I NEVER waived a jury trial, and was denied appellate review,
and the decision was CLEARLY based on an issue of fact, and not law, and on a
DISPUTED fact at that, the Court may elect to decline to hear this petition, but
then what rights does any entity have to their own property?
“A credible argument that a decision will have widespread, deleterious
effects, particularly on law enforcement, the conduct of government agencies, or
the practices [thereof]” “It is …. important that [this] ambiguous or obscure

Page 13
adjudication by state courts do not stand as [a] barrier to a determination by this
Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent
exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the
obscurities and ambiguities from the opinions in such cases” (Arizona v. Evans,
514 US 1 – Supreme Court 1995).
If the Court declines to hear this petition, it is a declaration of the end of
long held constitutional right to acquire and keep Personal Property, the right to
Redress the Government for Grievances, the right to Due Process, wherein state
laws are observed throughout legal proceedings, and the right that poor, and/or
unrepresented parties are provided with Equal Protection of the laws as is
provided to the rich and powerful in society.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2012, I, Marina J Boyd, Petitioner/Plaintiff, filed a Complaint
in Los Angeles Superior Court against CitiMortgage (hereinafter referred to as
CMI) for damages as a result of the disposal of my Personal Property following
trustee sale, eviction and lockout from the CONDO I previously owned at 12321
Ocean Park Blvd., Unit 1, Los Angeles, CA 90064.
The Complaint was assigned Case #SC117126, and was assigned to
Department M, the Hon. Linda K. Lefkowitz presiding, but prior to the first
hearing in the matter, the case was reassigned to Hon. Bobbi Tilmon, who
sustained, with leave to amend, CMI’s demurrer to the complaint on October 19,
2012. The Corresponding Motion to Strike was denied as Moot.
On, or about November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
adding additional Plaintiffs, Anita Faye Boyd (hereinafter referred to as Anita)
and Alexis Boyd-Holling (minor daughter of Plaintiff Marina J Boyd, hereinafter
referred to as Alexis). “CMI” demurred all causes of action and move to strike
portions of Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs Anita and Alexis. On
or about April 12, 2013, Hon. Bobbi Tilmon sustained “CMI”’ demurrer to

Page 14
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend and granted the Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs Anita and Alexis.
On or about May 6, 2013, the case was transferred to the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse in Department 92, Hon. Amy K. Hogue presiding.
On or about June 4, 2013, through newly retained counsel R. Alexander
Comley, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging six causes of action
for Negligence, Violation of California Civil Codes §§1965, 1983, 1984 and 1987,
California Code of Civil Procedure §1174, Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Business and
Professions Code §17200.
The hearing on “CMI” demurrer and motion to strike Plaintiffs portions of
2nd Amended Complaint was scheduled for hearing on December 4, 2013,
however, on December 4, 2013, on the Court, on its own motion, transferred the
case back to West District Courthouse in Santa Monica to Independent Calendar
Court and assigned to Department O, Hon. Lisa Hart Cole presiding. The hearing
on CMI demurrer and Motion to Strike was reset for June 20, 2014.
On or about October 3, 2013, CMI filed their first Motion for Summary
Judgment which was set for hearing on December 19, 2013, then vacated and
reset for hearing on June 20, 2014 following transfer to back to the West District
Court.
On or about November 11, 2013, CMI served identical Form Interrogatories
(55 items each), Special Interrogatories (94 items each), Request for Admissions
(32 items each), Request for Production of Documents (39 Document Request
each) and Notice of Depositions and Demand for Production of Documents at the
time of Deposition on Plaintiffs Marina J. Boyd, Anita and Alexis (39 Document
Request each).
On March 9, 2014, Plaintiffs served “CMI” with Form Interrogatories,
Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents. After several
extensions, CMI served boilerplate objections to 100% of Plaintiffs discovery

Page 15
request and after three additional months of extensions and concessions by
Plaintiff “CMI” served Plaintiffs incomplete (missing and redacted documents)
and non-compliant (not produced in the same for as kept in the normal course of
business) discovery responses on September 18, 2014, which were verified by
Travis Nurse.
Beginning just days following the receipt of “CMI’s” discovery responses,
Plaintiff made repeated attempts by phone and e-mail to meet and confer with
Samantha Lamm, then counsel for “CMI”, in an effort to resolve the discovery
issues, however Ms. Lamm ignored Plaintiffs inquiries until December 2014 when
she presumably left the firm of Wolfe and Wyman, LLP.
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff received notice of “CMI’s” removal of this
case to Federal Court and Cathy L Granger (partner at Wolfe & Wyman) assumed
representation of “CMI”. On December 27, 2014 “CMI” filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint which was granted (for none opposition) with
Leave to Amend on January 26, 2015.
In January 2015, Plaintiffs initiated efforts to meet and confer with Ms.
Granger to resolve the discovery disputes which were left outstanding by Ms.
Lamm, however on in mid February 2015, Ms. Granger denied withholding
production of any discovery.
On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff brought an ex-parte Motion for Order Granting
Leave to amend (the motion was brought ex-parte at the request of CMI), with a
proposed Third Amended Complaint, but the Court denied the motion without
stated reason and at that time vacated the hearing on CMI’s October 2013 Motion
for Summary Judgment stating the “case was not yet at issue”.
On or about June 20, 2014, Hon. Lisa Hart Cole sustained with 20 days
leave to amend (except intentional infliction of emotional distress which was
sustained without leave to amend), “CMI’s” demurrer to Plaintiffs 2nd Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff asked the Court to adopt the Proposed Third Amended

Page 16
Complaint which was filed on April 18, 2014, but the Court declined and granted
20 days leave to amend.
On July 17, 2014, re-filed (as a Noticed Motion) the Motion for Order
Granting Leave to Amend and with a Proposed Third Amended Complaint
seeking leave to add Plaintiffs Anita and Alexis, Defendant Mark Edward Alston
and Causes of Action for Conversion, Racketeering, Violation of the Unruh Act,
and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (citing new facts which had been
discovered since the 2nd Amended Complaint wherein the court denied Leave to
Amend that cause of action). The Motion was set for hearing on October 29, 2014.
On July18, 2014, “CMI” brought an ex-parte Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint with Prejudice based on a failure to file an amended
complaint within 10 days; HOWEVER the Court had ordered that the amended
complaint be filed within 20 days. On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third
Amended Complaint. Lisa Hart Cole’s courtroom was dark on July 18, 2014, and
Hon. Alan Goodman of Department P continued the hearing on CMI’s Motion to
Dismiss to July 29, 2014.
On July 29, 2014, Judge Lisa Hart Cole refused to deny “CMI” erroneous
Motion to Dismiss, even though at the time of hearing, a Third Amended
Complaint had been timely filed by Plaintiff, and instead, continued the hearing
on “CMI’s”’ erroneous Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs 2nd Amended Complaint to
coincide with the hearing date for Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to
Amend, on October 29, 2014.
On or about October 28, 2014, Department O issued a tentative ruling
GRANTING “CMI’s” improper motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with
Prejudice and DENYING Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend
based on a Procedural defect WHICH was not raised in “CMI” Opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion (Plaintiffs Motion is Denied based on a failure to comply with
C.R.C. 3.1324).

Page 17
On October 29, 2014, at the hearing, with court reporter present Plaintiff
presented to the court a document with the missing procedural elements along
with a supplemental opposition to “CMI” Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint. Again, the Court refused to deny “CMI” Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs 2nd Amended Complaint with Prejudice, but instead continued the
hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend to November 19,
2014 and granted “CMI” opportunity to reply to Plaintiffs Declaration pursuant
to C.R.C 3.1324 even though they did not raise this issue in their opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend.
On November 19, 2014, with court reporter present, Hon. Lisa Hart Cole
finally GRANTED Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend with the
exception of the Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,
which she directed Plaintiff to remove that cause of action and file a 3rd Amended
Complaint within five days. At the end of the hearing, Plaintiff Marina J Boyd
request the Court allow Plaintiff to make arguments for the records on the cause
of action which was sustained without leave to amend, which the Court denied.
This is contrary to Cannon 3B (7) of the Code of Judicial Ethics which states “A
judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that
person’s lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. Making a record for appeal
is a fundamental cornerstone of appellate practice.
On or about November 22, 2014, following removal of the Cause of Action
for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as order Plaintiff filed a Verified
Third Amended Complaint.
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff received notice of “CMI’s” removal of this
case to Federal Court and concurrently was informed that Cathy L Granger would
be assuming the representation of “CMI” in this case, and that the case was
assigned to Hon. Fernando Olguin for general purposes and Hon. John McDermott
was assigned as Magistrate Judge in the proceedings.

Page 18
On December 27, 2014 “CMI” filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Third
Amended Complaint which was granted with Leave to Amend on January 26,
2015.
In January 2015, Plaintiffs initiated efforts to meet and confer with Ms.
Granger to resolve the discovery disputes which were left outstanding by Ms.
Lamm, however on in mid February 2015, Ms. Granger informed Plaintiffs that
she had conferred extensively with “CMI” and that no additional documents
responsive to Plaintiffs request existed.
On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in U.S.
District Court alleging ten causes of action for Conspiracy to Commit Conversion
in Violation of Civil Code §1708, 1712 and 1714, Violation of Civil Code §1983,
Violation of Civil Code §1986, Violation of Civil Code §1987, Violation of Civil Code
§1988, Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure §1174, Violation of Business
and Professions Code §17200, Violation of Civil Code §51, and Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress and R.I.C.O. Violations.
On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff served a second set of Request for
Production of Documents to “CMI” for electronically stored information with
metadata and expanding the scope of the documents sought pursuant to the new
Causes of Action since the first discovery request in 2014.
On February 26, “CMI” filed a Motion to Dismiss portions of Plaintiffs
Fourth Amended Complaint as well as Motion to Strike in US District Court.
On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to Compel Further Responses,
however despite almost a year of conferring to resolve the disputes and having
well met the burden to meet and confer under California Code of Civil Procedures,
the US District Court denied Plaintiffs motion because a stipulation regarding
Plaintiffs Meet and Confer efforts was in included.
During the pending of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel in Federal Court, “CMI”
suggested they would like to further confer in efforts to resolve outstanding
discovery disputes and on April 30, 2015 and May 15, 2015 CMI served further

Page 19
responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Set One despite the
previous representation that all responses had been provided.
On March 30, 2015, “CMI” served boiler plate objections to Plaintiffs second
set of Request for Production of Documents as Electronically Stored Information
(ESI). Plaintiff advised “CMI” in June 2015 that in order to avoid a renewed
motion to compel, Plaintiff wished to take the Deposition of Travis Nurse, the
employee for “CMI”, who certified their discovery responses and who also
submitted testimony under oath, by way of declaration in opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Further Responses in US District Court to determine whether
their search efforts were sufficient, to ascertain the credibility that additional
searches would either be overly burdensome, and/or unlikely to lead to
discoverable documents, and to determine if production of documents was
complete pursuant to California Discovery Act.
On at least four separate occasions, Plaintiff sought to meet and confer with
counsel for “CMI” regarding the setting of deposition for Travis Nurse, however
after those efforts were ignored.
On June 17, 2015, the US District Court granted “CMI’s” Motion to Dismiss the
R.I.C.O. cause of action and remanded the remaining causes of action to the State
Court. On June 30, 2015, Department O of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued
a notice ex-parte to counsel for “CMI” setting case management hearing for
August 4, 2015 and ordering “CMI” to give notice of the Orders to Plaintiff.
On or about July 8, 2015, Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages to
counsel for “CMI” and on July 14, 2015, Plaintiff obtained an Entry of Default
against “CMI”, Inc. for failure to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs Third
Amended Complaint.
On July 22, 2015, “CMI” filed a Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Fourth Amended Complaint which was set for hearing on August 19, 2015.
Namely “CMI” sought to strike additional Plaintiffs Anita Faye Boyd and Alexis

Page 20
Boyd-Holling stating that “Judge Lisa Hart Cole had never ruled on that portion
of Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend”.
On or August 4, 2015, Case Management hearing was held in Department
O of the Los Angeles Superior Court in which the Court ordered Plaintiff file the
Fourth Amended Complaint under separate cover, and vacated Plaintiffs Entry of
Default. Upon request by counsel for “CMI” to the Court, Plaintiff agreed to a
voluntary Settlement Conference on September 11, 2015 to determine if any or all
of the matters at issue in the case could be resolved.
On August 4, 2015 pursuant to a brief meet and confer regarding discovery
matters following the hearing, Cathy Granger sent an e-mail to Plaintiff granting
a two week extension for Plaintiff to bring a Motion to Compel further responses
to request for Production of Documents but did not offer a date for the Deposition
of Travis Nurse.
On or about August 5, 2015, Plaintiff noticed the Deposition of Travis Nurse
to take place on August 31, 2015 at the offices of Wolfe and Wyman, LLC in Irvine,
California.
On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Request for Production of Documents Set One and second set of Request for
Production of Documents which was set for hearing on February 17, 2016.
On August 26, 2015 Plaintiffs received notice from “CMI” of their objection
to the Deposition of Travis Nurse and Plaintiff made four separate attempts to
contact counsel for “CMI” in effort to resolve their objections, however Plaintiffs
messages were ignored by until Wednesday, September 2, 2015 AFTER they
received ex-parte notice of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Deposition of Travis
Nurse.
On August 19, 2015, the Court heard “CMI” Demurrer and Motion to Strike
and sustained, without leave to amend, “CMI” Demurrer to Plaintiffs Causes of
Action for violation of California Civil Code §§51, 52 (The Unruh Act), Violations
of Code of Civil Procedure §1174, Violations of Business and Professions Code

Page 21
§17200 and granted “CMI’s” Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Anita Alexis in
contradiction to her November 19, 2014 order granting leave to amend to add
Plaintiffs. CMI plead no arguments as to why Plaintiffs should be stricken nor
did they allege that the Plaintiffs were improperly added, but when asked to
explain, simply recited the unsupported reason CMI stated in their motion “that
she never ruled on that portion of the Motion for Leave to amend”.
On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff gave notice to “CMI” of their Ex-Parte
Application for Order Shortening Time to hear a Motion to Compel the Deposition
of Travis Nurse and to hear the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request
for Production of Documents.
Only AFTER having received notice of the Ex-Parte hearing did “CMI”, on
September 3, 2015, counsel for “CMI” agreed to a meet and confer phone
conference, but during the conference, they refused to agree on a date and/or terms
for the deposition even though Plaintiff advised that the deposition could be taken
by video conference or by Plaintiff traveling to Missouri to take the deposition. On
September 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Travis
Nurse which was set for hearing on February 23, 2016, and brought an Ex-Parte
Application for Order Shortening Time for hearing the Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production of Documents, a Motion to Compel the
Deposition of Travis Nurse to October 6, 2015 (instead of February 17 2016, and
February 23, 2016 respectively).
On September 4, 2015, the Court continued Plaintiffs Motion for Order
Shortening time to September 11, 2015 which was the date previously set for a
settlement conference and upon request of Ms. Granger, took the Settlement
Conference off Calendar.
On September 11, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs UNOPPOSED Motion
to Compel further Responses to the Request for Production of Documents, as
untimely and the UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel the Deposition of Travis Nurse
because he lived more than 75 miles from the noticed location.

Page 22
The Court denied sanctions which had been demanded for misuse of the
discovery process and failure to meet and confer regarding the Deposition of
Travis Nurse citing first the denial of the motion, then upon Plaintiffs arguing
CCP §2016, changed her reason to “substantial justification”, however as the
Motions were unopposed, CMI did not plead nor did the Court specify what
justification it relied upon. On or about October 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals which was summarily denied on or
about November 12, 2015 for inadequate record.
On or about December 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review in the
Supreme Court of the State of California, but the Petition was summarily denied
without comment.
On January 26, 2016, “CMI” filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or in
the alternative, Summary Adjudication.
On or about February 3, 2016 Plaintiff served a Notice of taking of Deposition of
Person Most Knowledgeable for “CMI” to take place on March 8, 2016, however,
on or about February 28, 2016, “CMI” served boilerplate objections to the entire
notice.
On or about March 2, 2016, Plaintiff meet and conferred with counsel for
“CMI” by phone regarding the outstand discovery and requested dates of
Depositions for five CitiMortgage employees. Counsel for “CMI” refused to agree
to any dates except to “get back to Plaintiff with an update” by Thursday, March
10, 2016. On Friday, March 11, 2016, in the first communication regarding
outstanding discovery matters since the March 2, 2016 meet and confer, counsel
for “CMI” sent an e-mail stating they would get back to me on Friday, March 18,
2016.
On or about March 26, 2016 CMI finally identified their Persons Most
Knowledgeable, as Kevin Smith and Jeanine Cohoon and the first available date
for the first Deposition “CMI” provided was April 11, 2016. CMI’s also advised
that Travis Nurse was no longer associated with “CMI” and as such after almost

Page 23
a year of effort, Plaintiff was never able to depose the person who verified their
discovery responses.
On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff took the Deposition of “CMI” person most
Knowledgeable, Kevin Smith. “CMI” objected to, and did not provide any
documents responsive to the Notice of Taking of Deposition of Kevin Smith and
request for Production of Documents at the time of Deposition.
On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff took the Deposition of “CMI” employee Demetrios
Bageris, however “CMI” objected to and did not provide any documents responsive
to the Notice of Taking of Deposition of Kevin Smith and request for Production
of Documents at the time of Deposition.
On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff took the Deposition of “CMI” person most
Knowledgeable, Jeanine Cohoon. “CMI” objected to and did not provide any
documents responsive to the Notice of Taking of Deposition of Jeanine Cohoon and
request for Production of Documents at the time of Deposition.
On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff took the Deposition of “CMI” employee Krista
McCullough, however “CMI” objected to and did not provide any documents
responsive to the Notice of Taking of Deposition of Krista McCullough and request
for Production of Documents at the time of Deposition.
On May 20, 2016, I filed and served Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Objection to Evidence in
Opposition of, Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition and Declaration in
Opposition to “CMI’s” Motion for Summary Judgment, (the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Opposition was also served by e-mail on May 17, 2016,
and Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts was served by e-mail on May 18,
2016).
On or about May 23, 2016, “CMI” filed a Reply and Objections to Plaintiffs
late response. On May 25, 2016, the Court granted “CMI’s” Motion for Summary
Judgment over objection by Plaintiff that Judge Lisa Hart Cole recuse herself

Page 24
from the Case. Plaintiff’s objection and request for recusal pursuant to 170.1 was
not entered into the minute order (See RJN, Exhibit G, Order on MSJ).
On May 26, 2016, I filed a Statement of Disqualification against Judge Lisa
Hart Cole for bias, and included by referenced a May 24, 2016, Complaint for
Equity which set forth facts constituting bias.
On June 1, 2016, Judge Lisa Hart Cole filed a Verified Answer generally
denying any Bias, and in refusing to incorporate the facts set forth in the
Complaint for Equity Ordered the Statement of Disqualification stricken. The
Second district Court of Appeals summarily denied a subsequent Writ of Mandate
on June 17, 2016, but only ruled that the trial court did not error in striking the
Statement of Disqualification.
On, or about June 23, 2017, I filed a Motion for New Trial, which was heard
after two separate Writ Petitions to the California Court of Appeals for the 2nd
District and one Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court, on the issue
of disqualification of Judge Lisa Hart Cole. All petitions were summarily denied,
without Comment contrary to California Law.
On September 7, 2016, I filed a Notice of Appeal and proceeded to perfect
the appeal. Judge Lisa Hart Cole issued a late denial of my Motion for New Trial
on, or about October 7, 2016.
On January 31, 2017, the 2nd District Court of Appeals dismissed my appeal,
and on February 6, 2017, I electronically submitted a Motion for Relief from
default and to Vacation Dismissal, pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.54 and
per instructions provided in a phone conversation with an Appeals Court Clerk on
January 10, 2017. On February 6, 2017, the court forwarded a confirmation of
receipt of the document I filed, but for reasons which the court could NOT explain,
the motion was ignored without comment, even after the court acknowledged
receipt of the motion electronically, and the Court issued a remittitur on March 8,
2017.

Page 25
Immediately upon receipt of the electronic notice of remittitur, I contacted
the Court of Appeals, and inquired as to why my February 6, 2017, Motion had
been ignored.
I was advised by the Court that I must file a Motion to Recall the Remittitur
to explain what happened, which I did on April 7, 2017, however, the Court
“considered” and denied on a basis not consistent with California Statute.
On May 5, 2017, I filed a Petition for Rehearing to the 2nd District Court of
Appeals, the Court REJECTED the filing, which was also inconsistent with
California Statute.
On May 30, 2017, I filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme
Court which was summarily denied on July 12, 2017.
LEGAL STANDARD
The US Supreme Court has already decided that multiple violations of
State Law in sum, can amount to a violation of constitutional rights of a litigant.
In this case, the party responsible for my loss is not in dispute, and the manner in
which the State of California obstructed my right to meaningful review on appeal,
means that this ENTIRE matter was disposed of, on the UNREVIEWD opinion,
of a SINGLE JUDGE, who’s bias, or lack thereof, was NEVER reviewed by anyone
by the judge who may, or may not have been impartial. The Court MUST grant
review in this case, because I was denied access to EVERY check and balance put
in place by California Statute, precedence and Rules of Court.
1. The Trial Court departed from California Statue in their Ruling on
Defendant CMI’s Motion for Summary Judgment (See RJN Exhibit A,
Motion for New Trial).
The right to regain possession of one’s property is a substantial right which
may not be dependent upon the whim and caprice of a court. Neither can it be
subject to some “unspecified” and/or conflicting date of CMI to justify their
unlawful interference with Plaintiffs Personal Property Rights. When a statute’s

Page 26
meaning is clear, it must be applied as written. (Conn. Nat’l Bank v.
Germain, 5 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992). The Los Angeles Superior Court DID
NOT apply this standard in the ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The 9th Circuit has held that when reviewing a case involving a pro se
litigant the Court “we must consider as evidence in his opposition to summary
judgment all of Jones’s contentions offered in motions and pleadings, where such
contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and where Jones attested under penalty of perjury that
the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct. (McElyea v. Babbitt,
833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir.1987) (verified pleadings admissible to oppose
summary judgment); (Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th
Cir.1998) (verified motions admissible to oppose summary judgment); Schroeder
v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 n. 10 (9th Cir.1995) (pleading counts as “verified”
if the drafter states under penalty of perjury that the contents are true and
correct).
In this case, the judge IGNORED my contention that I requested the return
of my Personal Property, a contention which was supported by phone records and
e-mail records in evidence, and based he Summary Judgment ruling on my
“failure to request their return” This is a claim that was NEVER made by the
Defendant. This fact was MATERIAL to the case and it’s outcome. “Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment,” ie, are “material.” (Dunbar v.
Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, 2003 ).
In deciding a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable
inferences in its favor (SUN-MATE CORPORATION v. KOOLATRON
CORPORATION, 2011) this also was ignored in the Summary Judgment ruling.
The court’s function in a summary judgment motion is not to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is

Page 27
a genuine issue for trial (Durham v. LINDUS CONSTRUCTION/MIDWEST
LEAFGUARD, 2009) and, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in the
nonmoving party’s favor and accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true
(Siddique v. Macy’s, 2013). All these basic principles are codified in both
California statute and Federal law and they were ignored in my case.
2. The Trial Court departed from California Statue in their Ruling on
Petitioner/Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions (See RJN Exhibit B, Petition for
Writ of Mandate).
Denial of my Discovery Motions and Sanctions (Motion to Compel
Deposition and Motion to Compel Further Responses) was a plain error under
California Statute, and it was denied meaningful review by Writ, or Appeal. This
Court as the Court of last resort, must ensure that this violation of my equal
protection of Discovery laws is addressed. “To prevail on plain error review,” a
party must demonstrate an error that was clear or obvious, that the error affected
his substantial rights, and that “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
[his] judicial proceedings” would be seriously affected if the error were not
corrected. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1997). “It is the
unusual case that will present [plain] error.” (Highlands Ins. Co. v. National
Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 27 F.3d 1027, 1032 (5th Cir. 1994), but THIS
case does.
3. The Trial Court departed from California Statue in their Ruling on
Petitioner/Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification of Judge Lisa Hart
Cole, Motion for New Trial and (See RJN Exhibit C, Petition for Writ of
Mandate).
ENSURING a fair tribunal is a REQUIREMENT of Due Process. “A fair
trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course
requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has
always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.”
(Commonwealth v. Howard, 1975).

Page 28
How can a fair tribunal be INSURED if the only person to test the fairness
of the tribunal, is the person accused of bias? California statute doesn’t think so,
and the 2nd District Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court’s summary
denial of my Writ and Petition for review was contrary to California Statue which
REQUIRED that a judge OTHER THAN the judge accused of bias determine if
bias exist. This did not happen. “It is axiomatic that `a fair trial in a fair tribunal
is a basic requirement of due process.” “Further, the Court explained that “[s] uch
a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and
who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between
contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way `justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice.”(FLESHNER v. PEPOSE VISION INSTITUTE,
PC, 2010).
In Taylor, the Supreme Court explained that “contemptuous conduct,
though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him
in controversy that he cannot `hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the
state and the accused.” (Railey v. Webb, 2008) (Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488 –
Supreme Court 1974).
As one Supreme Court justice has aptly stated, “Judicial integrity is, in
consequence, a state interest of the highest order.” (PUBLIC UTILITY COM’N v.
Cities of Harlingen, 2010) (Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 US 765 –
Supreme Court 2002) and any judge who fears scrutiny of their actions by a
colleague, SHOULD raise suspicion of their impartiality. Not only is it improper
for a judge to be so embroiled in a case that they fear the case being moved to
another judge if possible bias is found, it calls into question of the judge is
confident in their own impartiality. “Not only is a biased decision maker
constitutionally unacceptable but `our system of law has always endeavored to
prevent even the probability of unfairness.” (Stonecipher v. Poplar Bluff R1
School Dist., 2006).

Page 29
The Supreme Court has observed that a ” `fair trial in a fair tribunal is a
basic requirement of due process.’… This applies to administrative agencies which
adjudicate as well as to courts.” (Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35 – Supreme Court
1975). The Court should apply “the pervasive bias exception” to this case as it
was “so Extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.” (Liteky v.
U.S., 510)
4. The 2nd District Court of Appeals departed from California Statute in
their Ministerial Duty to File Petitioner/Plaintiff’s February 6, 2017
Motion to Vacate Dismissal (See RJN Exhibit D, Motion to Recall
Remittitur) and departed from their policy of granting access to
Appellate Review in their denial of Petitioner/Plaintiff’s UNOPPOSED
Motion to Recall Remittitur (See RJN Exhibit E, Motion to Recall
Remittitur and Ignored Feburay 6, 2017 Motion)
It is well accepted that “[m]ost judicial mistakes or wrongs are open to
correction through ordinary mechanisms of review, which are largely free of the
harmful side-effects inevitably associated with exposing judges to personal
liability.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555
(1988). There is an inherent conflict and suspicion which arises when the same
court who refuses to entertain allegations of bias, then violates California statues,
rules of court and public policy precedence to prevent meaningful appellate review
on the merits. We cannot rightfully continue to support UNABRIDGED absolute
immunity for judges if the Court may deny meaningful review on select case by
case basis.
5. The 2nd District Court of Appeals departed from California Statute in
their refusal to file, consider and rule on Plaintiff’s Petition for
Rehearing (See RJN, Exhibit F, Petition for Rehearing/Refusal).
We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights
apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the
standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second

Page 30
Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Republican Party of Minn. v.
White, 536 US 765 – Supreme Court 2002).
6. California Supreme Court summary denial of Petition for Review
represents a departure from California long held public policy that cases
should be resolved on the Merits (See RJN Exhibit G, Petition for Review
to California Supreme Court/Denial)
Whether or not the obstructions I encountered were by poorly trained staff,
or intentional obstruction is immaterial. Either way, it interfered with my
constitutional rights. “Judicial ethics reinforced by statute exact more than
virtuous behavior; they command impeccable appearance. Purity of heart is not
enough. Judge’s robes must be as spotless as their actual conduct.” (Collins v.
Dixie Transport, Inc., 1989). Nothing in the law excludes Appellate and/or
Supreme Court Justices from this requirement. The reviewing Courts singled me
out to deny appellate review, and this is demonstrated in my petition for Review
to the Supreme Court. The burden of ensuring the court’s impartial appearance
falls on the shoulders of law clerks as well as on judges. “[I] t is when execution
of a government policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those
whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the
injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” (Monell v.
New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658 – Supreme Court 1978)
A “policy” is a “deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . made from
among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing
final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.” Fogel v. Collins, 531
F.3d 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2008); Long, 442 F.3d at 1185. A “custom” for purposes of
municipal liability is a “widespread practice that, although not authorized by
written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well-settled as to
constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.” (St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485
U.S. 112, 127 (1988); L. A. Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 890
(9th Cir. 1990); see also Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 1991).

Page 31
In other words, a custom is a widespread and longstanding practice that
“constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity.”
Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918 (quoting Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th
Cir. 1992)).
The Appellate and Supreme Courts departed from both policy and custom
in handling my case, and their “conduct was both the cause in fact and the
proximate cause of the constitutional deprivation” See Harper v. City of L.A., 533
F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008); Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918) which I suffered, “and
these actions are directly responsible” for me being denied access to the Courts,
and meaningful appellate review. (Thompson v. Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443-
44 (9th Cir. 1989).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
That the Court shall vacate the Order GRANTING the Summary Judgment
in favor of CMI, shall remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court for a new
trial, Or, that the Courts shall remand this Case to the California Court of
Appeals, in a district OTHER than the 2nd District, and shall order that the 2nd
District Court of Appeals Vacate the Dismissal of the Appeal and permit the case
to proceed with a full hearing on the merits in a different district, OR
Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate to ensure the protection
of constitutional rights and civil liberties.
Date: __________________
By:___________________________
October 11, 2017
Marina J Boyd, Petitioner/Plaintiff

Page 32
Verification of Pleading
BOYD VS CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
I, Marina J Boyd, declare I am the Petitioner/Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. I have read the
foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI and know the contents thereof.
The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on
information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
Executed on October 11, 2017, at Los Angeles, County, California.
I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
By:_________________________________________
MARINA J BOYD, Petitioner/Plaintiff

Page 33
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I hereby certify that I have checked the length of this computer-generated brief using
the word count feature of my word-processing application. (FRP 14) The brief as currently
constituted contains 7,300 words.
MARINA JOY BOYD

Page 34
No. ____________
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Marina J Boyd
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
vs.
California Supreme Court
RESPONDENT
CitiMortgage, Inc. Real Party at Interest
_____________________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marina J Boyd
10951 National Blvd., #302
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Petitioner/Plaintiff in Pro Per
California Supreme Court
450 McAlister Street
San Francisco, California 94101
Respondent Court
Cathy Granger, Esq.
Wolfe & Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, #300
Irvine, California 92612
Attorney for CitiMortgage
Real Party at Interest
California 2nd District
Court of Appeals
300 S. Spring St, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
17-8641

Page 35
“The record of state court proceeding is a source whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of court
records (Mauldin v. Kates, 2012)
The record in this case is extensive, and it, being impractical to
submit the whole record, hereby request that the Court take Judicial
Notice of the following records from this case.
EXHIBIT
DOCUMENT
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E

Page 36
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Earlie R. Jones, am a resident of Los Angeles County, state of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to this action. My address is 7257 Motz Avenue, Paramount, CA 90727.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017, I served the document(s) described as:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
BY Mail as follows: I caused such documents to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service with
postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California address to:
Cathy Granger
Wolfe & Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, #300
Irvine, CA 92612
California 2nd District
Court of Appeals
300 S. Spring Street, 2nd floor
Los Angeles, California 90012
Los Angeles Superior Court
Department of Civil Appeals
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
California Supreme Court
450 McAlistiar Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.
Executed this _____ day of October 2017 at Los Angeles, California.
______________________________
Earlie R. Jones
Print Name
(X)
11th

Page 37
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT A – Motion for a New Trial

Page 38
No. ____________
In the Supreme Court of the United States
In re: Marina J Boyd
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
vs.
California Supreme Court
RESPONDENT
CitiMortgage, Inc. Real Party at Interest
_____________________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST TO FILE OUT OF TIME PETITION
EXHIBITS
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marina J Boyd
10951 National Blvd., #302
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Petitioner/Plaintiff in Pro Per
California Supreme Court
450 McAlister Street
San Francisco, California 94101
Respondent Court
Cathy Granger, Esq.
Wolfe & Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, #300
Irvine, California 92612
Attorney for CitiMortgage
Real Party at Interest
California 2nd District
Court of Appeals
300 S. Spring St, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
17-8641

Page 39
I, Marina J Boyd, Petitioner/Plaintiff, in this action hereby request
permission of this Court to file Petition for Writ of Certiorari Exhibits
that may be considered to be jurisdictionally out of time pursuant to 28
U. S. C. §2101(c).
I believe good cause exist to grant this request in accordance with
US 28 111, because extraordinary medical and US 28 xxxxx financial
conditions exist which contributed to a slight delay filing the petition
which will not prejudice any real party in this matter because all parties
have been served within the same time period as if the petition was filed
timely.
BACKGROUND
According to my initial calculation, my Petition for Writ of
Certiorari was due. I had to persevere through a debilitating
autoimmune disorder in order to learn the procedure, prepare my
petition, however, at the time of filing, I realized that I did not have the
financial means for copying and mailing of all the pages of my petition.
In desperation, I sent one copy of my Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
without exhibits (weight and size of these exhibits would have required
additional postage which I could not afford) by USPS overnight service,
tracking #9581 7000 1178 7283 0005 04, on October 10, 2017, and I am
following up with this request to file an out of time petition. This
application is filed concurrently with a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, a single copy of my petition with all exhibits. Because of I ld a
request for disability in the event that the single copy of the petition does

Page 40
not meet the requirements of a timely filing. This application is filed
concurrently
LEGAL STANDARD
For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for
a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days, and in
extraordinary circumstances, the application can be filed even if not done
10 days before the date the petition is due. “An application to extend the
time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify
the judgment sought to be reviewed…..and set out specific reasons why
an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the
Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in
extraordinary circumstances”. (US Supreme Court Rule 13.5).
1.
THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE
The US Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this case, because the
California Supreme Court, which is a Court of last resort in this state,
has denied review of this case. This Court retains Jurisdiction of this
case on the date of this Application because the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari was filed by USPS on October 10, 2017, and that is sufficient
to preserve the jurisdiction of this court.
2.
EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL CONDITIONS EXIST
I became aware of the substantial number of copies required to
proceed with my petition, and the cost of delivering such a large package
on the petition due date and I have taken immediate action to remedy

Page 41
this matter to the best of my ability, financial and otherwise, however it
remains that original petition was timely filed.
3.
THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO REAL PARTIES
Granting of this extension will not prejudice any real parties in this
matter, because there will be no distinction or delay in the time in which
real parties will be advised of this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
I hereby pray for the following relief; That the Court will grant this
motion and permit my petition to proceed in the interest of justice, and
will grant my accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
that the court will allow me to proceed filing only a single copy of my
petition and exhibits and allow the late filing of a single copy of my
exhibits, pursuant to the Request for Judicial notice of portions of the
record in this case.
Date: October 13, 2017
By:_____________________________

 

Accessibility
Close
Font Resize
A- A+
Close