R. Gary Klausner , US District Court Judge for the Central District of California Complaint of Judicial Misconduct for Discriminating Against the Disabled Los Angeles, California

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The claimant, brings forth this COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT against R. Gary Klausner, a U.S. District Jude for the reason that Judge R. Gary Klausner has discriminated against him based on his disability by refusing to grant his reasonable accommodation request to allow Claimants ex-wife and current live-in-aid, to be his authorized representative and address the court in his behalf, in order to afford claimant equally effective communication with the court.

The Claimant is a qualified person living with disabilities under both Federal and State laws. He is emotional disabled and his disability translates into his inability to properly communicate while in public as he gets panic attacks, becomes frozen with fear and experiences extreme anxiety, thus greatly interfering with his thought process and it also affects his speech. His disability clearly gets in the way to present his best case forward to the court, and as such he has requested via a reasonable accommodation request to the court for his ex-wife and his current live-in-aid and caregiver to be allowed to address the court, communicate with the court, in his behalf.

The Claimant has filed a federal lawsuit in Pro Per against his current housing providers for housing discrimination, harassment and retaliation, just to name few of the causes of action, on April 13, 2011. Because he has filed the case in forma pauperis his Complaint was also screened by a magistrate judge and was accepted as of April 22, 2011. His case has been assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner.

On or about April 29, 2011, a Reasonable Accommodation Request has been submitted to the Access Court Coordinator, Mr. S. C. via facsimile in which the Claimant asked to be provided with equally effective communications and for his ex-wife to be allowed to speak in his behalf. This reasonable accommodation request was a very confidential document, and supposed to be treated as such, as it contained the exact diagnosis of the Claimant and explained why the accommodation was necessary. This reasonable accommodation request was not supposed to be disclosed to the defendants as it had nothing to do with the underlying case, and it was for the eyes of the person or persons who were to render a decision in it ONLY.

On or about May 7, 2011 while checking his case on PACRERS, Claimant was mortified to see that Judge R. Gary Klausner rejected to even consider the reasonable accommodation request and all his very private, medical related documents, has been publicized out in the open.

On or about May 8, 2011, the Claimant has wrote a letter of grievance to the Chief Judge at that time, Judge Audrey B. Collins, asking her to take all his confidential information down immediately, and for his reasonable accommodations to be considered and ruled on.

The Claimant immediately also filed a Motion to Recuse Judge R. Gary Klausner, dated May 9, 2011.That motion was denied on May 17, 2011, by Judge George H. King, the current Chief Judge for the Central District Court of California.

On or about, May 09, 2011 at the end of the day, the confidential information and the order has been taken down from PACERS.

The ex-wife has been contacted by Mr. B. B., who is a clerk supervisor, and he told her that the Federal Court had enlisted the help of an Attorney who specializes in ADA Law, in order to re-train the court staff about their duty when it comes to accommodating the disabled, and that Chief Judge is working on an answer on how to address the reasonable accommodation request.

On or about May 17, 2011, the Claimant has received a letter of apology from Terry Nafisi, the District Court executive and Clerk of the Court, in which she stated that, and I quote: let me apologize for the staff inadvertently posting your document, reasonable accommodation request, on PACERS, end of quote. She also stated that as a federal court they are not required to have an ADA Coordinator, unlike states courts and, after that she went on and stated that, and I quote: All the communications with the court must be filed, end of quote. This meant to the Claimant that his reasonable accommodation request will not be ruled on or even be considered, and as such, he was still without equally effective communication with the court.

The ex-wife of the Claimant called Mr. C and Mr. B, the next day after receiving the aforementioned letter, and, requested to be provided with the courts own procedure on how that reasonable accommodation request should be submitted and addressed. She was told by Mr. B to submit it as a motion under seal but not to quote him on that. The ex-wife insisted for the Claimant to be provided with specific instructions by the court on how to be submitted, she was told that they will get back to her.

The following week, the ex-wife of the Claimant got a call from Mr. B. and she was told that Mr. C. was also on the line. Mr. C. told her that after he did some research even if the Federal Courts do not come under the ADA Law or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 section 504, they have adopted a rule, and that is, to provide reasonable accommodations to people with communications disabilities, and that the original submission of the reasonable accommodation request was properly forwarded to him as the access coordinator, but Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled otherwise and as such he cannot overrule a judge. Mr. B. then intervened and told to the ex-wife of the Claimant that he has specific instructions from Judge Klausner on how to submit the reasonable accommodation request and that is via a motion under seal, with a notice to the defendants that a motion under seal has been filed. When the ex-wife of the Claimant pointed out to Mr. B. that there is a hearing scheduled for June 20, 2011 which is less then 31days away from that date, and that the Claimant needs his accommodation to be granted or ruled on BEFORE that date Mr. B. then suggested for that motion to be done as an Ex-Parte Application filed under seal.

On or about May 26, 2011, the Reasonable Accommodation Request has been submitted by the Claimant and filed under seal. On or about June 3, 2011, once more the Claimant was mortified to read on PACERS that Judge R. Gary Klausner not only denied his reasonable accommodation request, thus officially, and in writing discriminated against the Claimant, but he published it on PACERS and gave notice to the defendants about it, in clear violation of his right to privacy as he denied for the ex-parte to be filled under seal.

This was no longer a mistake or an error on the part of Judge Klausner this was done with clear malice and intent to hurt the Claimant and to unlawfully, invidiously and intentionally discriminate against the claimant based on his disability. By and through his direct, intentional actions, he has denied to the Claimant his right of equally effective communications with the court which is clearly secured by the Federal Courts own adopted rules to provide as such to the disabled.

By and through his direct actions, judge Klausner abused his power as a judge by requiring the Claimant to file unnecessary papers with the court and forced him to jump through hoops in order to have his reasonable accommodation request considered, even thaw the Federal Courts own guidelines does not require as such. Judge Klausner FORCED the Claimant to disclose to the defendants that he is asking for this reasonable accommodation request of the court when the rules DOES not require as such, and the Claimant expressively stated that he does not want to waive his rights to confidentiality, and also he maliciously order for his very private information to be publicized on PACERS.

All this was done with a clear and malicious intent to deter Claimant to even seek the Reasonable Accommodation Request by making it so difficult and impossible to do so, while Judge Klausner knowing the whole time exactly what the Claimant is requesting of the court. When finally the Claimant did jumped through all the hoops and avoided all the traps placed by the judge, the ultimate injustice took place when the judge denied his reasonable accommodation request and refused to allow the ex-wife of the Claimant to address the court in his behalf in order to afford him equally effective communication with the court, thus clearly unlawfully and invidiously DISCRIMINATED against the Claimant based on his disability. He has used his judicial power to retaliate against the Claimant for daring to bring forth his Motion to Recuse him, as such, his invidious, intentional and unlawful retaliatory discrimination toward the Claimant does amount to judicial misconduct.

SUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The claimant, brings forth this SUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT against R. Gary Klausner, a U.S. District Jude for the reason that he has unearth new things about Judge R. Gary Klausner which are directly relevant to this Complaint.

Back in 1995 Judge R. Gary Klausner has denied another reasonable accommodation request while sitting as a Presiding Judge for the Superior Court in California, to a colleague Judge Burton Bach. As a direct result of the denial to accommodate his hearth condition Judge Bach was forced to take an early retirement.

In 1998 Judge Burton Bach has mounted an election challenge to then Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gary Klausner. In the challenge Judge Bach reasons that if Klausner would act so oppressively toward a colleague, it must be imagined that he is all the more ruthless in his dealing with litigants. In essence, Bach wants a pattern of judicial misconduct to be presumed. One year later in August of 1999 Judge Burton Bach died after a triple bypass hearth surgery. One may reason that Judge Klausner has contributed to Judge Bach death as Judge Bach continued to blame until his death Judge Klausner for ousting him from his post as a judge.

This clearly shows a pattern and practice of Judge R. Gary Klausner of denial of reasonable accommodations to the disabled and a clear bias towards the disabled. This also explains why Judge R. Gary Klausner was so vindictive and so viciously violated The Claimants rights as he has reminded Judge Klausner of and brought forth his deep hatred and resentment towards judge Burton Bach. As such it clearly shows a personal extrajudicial bias against the Claimant, and against any other disabled individual for that matter.

A Writ for Extraordinary Relief has also been filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals On June 14, 2011.

SECONDSUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The claimant, brings forth this SECOND SUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT against R. Gary Klausner, a U.S. District Jude for the reason that Judge R. Gary Klausner has retaliated against the Claimant, after he sent in the supplement of complaint of judicial misconduct, with the direct intent to obstruct this Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and the Writ for Extraordinary Relief filed on June 14, 2011, by dismissing The Claimants complaint in its entirety with no leave to amend, as such this retaliatory conduct is highly relevant to this Complaint.

On July 8, 2011, Judge R. Gary Klausner issued an order dismissing The Claimants Complaint in its entirety with no leave to amend days after the Claimant sent to this court his Supplement of Complaint of Judicial Misconduct. The Claimant immediately filed a Notice of Appeal with the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals on July 11, 2011.

Judge R. Gary Klausner has used his judicial power to retaliate against the Claimant for daring to bring forth his Motion to Recuse him, for daring to bring forth his Complaint for Judicial Misconduct, and for daring to bring forth his Writ for Extraordinary Relief, as such, his invidious, intentional and unlawful retaliation and discrimination towards the Complainant does amount to judicial misconduct. This judge is bias against the Complainant and does NOT respect the law as he willfully and notoriously violates the law.

THIRD SUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The claimant, brings forth this THIRD SUPPLEMENT OF COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT against R. Gary Klausner, a U.S. District Jude for the reason that Judge R. Gary Klausner s direct interference with the Writ for Extraordinary Relief achieved the sought results and that was for the Writ to be denied in the direct detriment of the Claimant.

On August 10, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Claimants Writ for Extraordinary Relief giving no other reason then the following: Because the petition does not warrant the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, the petition is denied. See Bauman v.United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977).

The Claimant can only deduct from the above ruling that at the point his Writ was looked and decided upon, the underlying case was already dismissed and a Notice of Appeal was filed. Taking all that into account, the Writ was no longer needed when the Claimant also contested in his Notice of Appeal Judge Klausner s ruling on the reasonable accommodation request, and as such, it can then be addressed at the Appeal. This is exactly what judge Klausner wanted and it is exactly why he dismissed the Claimants underlying case in order to obstruct the Writ.

By acting with its sole interest in mind, Judge Klausner has not only directly interfered with the outcome of the Writ, but has denied justice to the Claimant by now prolonging the unbearable living situation of the Claimant with no speedy sign of relief. His whole life is destroyed, on hold and up in the air as the Claimant is still in the same housing situation as he was prior to filing his Complaint with the US District Court back on April 13, 2011. He is still denied reasonable accommodations by his housing provider in violation of the federal law and his disabilities have been greatly exacerbated since.

By his unfounded and bias rulings in the underlying case, the judge herein interfered with, obstructed with and willfully undermined the case in question by being prejudice for his own benefit. Judge Klausner knew and understood full well that it was a Mandamus before the courts and used artifice, in an odious fashion, and has exerted undue influence upon the court where the Mandamus was to be heard, in order to negate the Claimants due process rights.

With his highly questionable ruling, Judge Klausner has interfered with and has sabotaged the Claimants right of due process and he has exacerbated, compounded and multiplied the Claimants injuries. It is here further alleged, that Judge Klausner has emboldened the defendants to inflict more injuries upon the Claimant and as such, he became a co-party participant, during and after the fact, in an almost sadistic fashion for his great distain of those who are disabled.

Instead of his underlying case moving forward and have a jury of his pears decide whether he should be accommodated or not, he is now at the mercy of his housing provider and has to wait until next year the earliest for the Ninth Circuit Court to rule on his Appeal. With every day that passes The Claimants health is deteriorating due to the constant exposure to the horrible noises coming from the unit above his. Judge Klausner has enabled the Defendants to continue the torture of the Claimant, which amounts to exerting an absolute and all-pervasive domination of the Claimant's existence, who is a victim at the hands of the Defendants, because of his economic situation which renders him unable to move.

It is here and alleged, that all this happened, because Judge Klausner has a personal, extrajudicial bias, towards the disabled. The sole reason why the Claimants complaint has been dismissed in its entirety with no leave to amend is for Judge Klausners personal gain and motive, of intentionally obstructing the Writ, and solely to protect his image, having nothing to do with justice.

It is here and alleged that what Judge Klausner did to the Claimant it amounts to misbehavior on the bench.

TO THIS DATE, THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT HAS FAILED TO RENDER AN ANSWER TO THE CLAIMANT'S COMPLAINT