In another hardly surprising move the Presiding Judge of the Riverside Superior court fails to competently address the law. It is hardly surprising, as it counts as yet another ho hum judicial retaliation moment, that this court selectively engages in with certain litigants.
This court has a considerable history of declaring litigants that dare to question heinous rulings and expect the court to address them based on the relevant legal standard as vexatious. There is substantial debate as to the whether the VLS statue can even be applied in family law proceedings.
Nevertheless every litigant who has been “deemed” vexatious has the statutory right to file an application to vacate the prefiling order citing a material change of facts and in the interest of justice pursuant to CCP § 533.
The judicial council in the newly amended CCP § 391 statue recognized that a litigant has the legal right to request relief from a prefiling order and has made a handy form available for that very purpose http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc703.pdf.
Pursuant to Civil code of procedure § 391.8. (a) A vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under section 391.7 may file an application to vacate the prefiling order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. The application shall be filed in the court that entered the prefiling order, either in the action in which the prefiling order was entered or in conjunction with a request to the presiding justice or presiding judge to file new litigation under Section 391.7. The application shall be made before the justice or judge who entered the order, if that justice or judge is available. If that justice or judge who entered the order is not available, the application shall be made before the presiding justice or presiding judge, or his or her designee.
Presiding Judge Cope in his wisdom granted the application and then denied it citing that the application did not present a material change of facts or in the interest of justice. In addition to the ubiquitous MC 702 form which again was used to issue a contradictory order granting and denying the same application, Judge Cope felt the need to waste paper by filing another form, an optional MC 704 form.
However, pursuant to CCP § 391 (b) Presiding Judge Cope recognized the merit of the application to vacate the prefiling order by granting it and filing it. The statue specifies as follows: “The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay”.
The merit standard is the underlying nature of the litigation which in this case was presented as an application to vacate a prefiling order citing a material change of facts and in the interest of justice pursuant to to CCP § 533.
The current Presiding Judge of this court proves time and time again that he refuses to address any legal standard to selectively discriminate against certain litigants; even instructing his judicial officers to NOT address any best interest of the child standard in any proceeding.