See also recent shenanigans on Michael Roddy's watch.
See decision in Coulter v. Roddy
Michael Roddy seems to be compiling a record of repeated efforts to deny justice.
From the Coulter v. Roddy ruling:
"...According to Plaintiff, in May of 2009, Murrell obtained a “request for dismissal” of the state court action executed by Plaintiff on an outdated form, knowing the form would not be accepted by the superior court clerk’s office.
"Plaintiff alleges Roddy, the Executive Officer of the clerk’s office, enacted and enforced “policies, regulations and customary practices” which caused the clerk’s office employees to “improperly and illegally deny filing” the request for dismissal.
"Murrell’s and Roddy’s actions allegedly prevented Plaintiff from proceeding with the state court action, in violation of his due process rights. In addition, during the six-month period between when Plaintiff signed the request for dismissal form in May of 2009 and when the state court finally dismissed the action in November of 2009, the Estate of Daniel T. Shelley was depleted, leaving nothing to satisfy his claims...
"Roddy’s only argument is that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a conspiracy between
Roddy and Murrell. Roddy cites Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,
1161 (9th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that conclusory allegations that the lawyer was conspiring
with state officers to deprive him of due process are insufficient to support a § 1983 claim.
"However, in Simmons, the Ninth Circuit held that such conclusory allegations were insufficient to
support a § 1983 claim against a private attorney who was not acting under color of state law. Id.
Here, Roddy does not dispute that as Executive Officer of the clerk’s office, he was acting under
color of state law with respect to the allegedly unlawful conduct.
"Thus, the only issue is whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged Roddy’s conduct violated
Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution or federal law. Construing the FAC in light most
favorable to Plaintiff, as the Court must, the § 1983 claim against Roddy does not depend on a
"Indeed, Plaintiff only alleges the clerk’s office confirmed for Murrell that the
outdated form would not be accepted. (FAC ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges Roddy, by enacting and
enforcing certain policies and practices, caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s due process rights."
signed by Judge Irma Gonzalez