v. Harms
Filing
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 8/31/2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
IN RE
9
DALE NORMAN HARMS,
No. C-12-80177 MISC EMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff.
___________________________________/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Dale Norman Harms’s filing of July 25, 2012. Docket No.
14
1. This matter appears to have been assigned as a “miscellaneous matter” to this Court as the
15
General Duty Judge because Plaintiff does not appear to have filed a complaint to initiate litigation
16
against any particular person, entity, or entities. However, the Court cannot discern from Plaintiff’s
17
filing and accompanying documents what relief Plaintiff is seeking from the Court. The Court
18
therefore issues this Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed.
19
First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to domesticate a judgment from a foreign court or
20
otherwise obtain relief based on a previous judgment – the caption to his filing states that he seeks to
21
provide “commercial notice of the filing of foreign judgment by estoppel – Plaintiff has not provided
22
a copy of any judgment by any court. The majority of Plaintiff Harm’s filed documents – which
23
appear to relate to a loan or loans he purportedly obtained to purchase property, and a potential
24
foreclosure process that is either ongoing or has been completed – do not contain the signatures of
25
anyone but Plaintiff and/or his wife and a notary public. They thus do not indicate the execution of
26
any contract or entry of any judgment by any court, nor do they indicate any admission on the part
27
of any other entity. The only documents that appear facially valid are those relating to a Notice of
28
1
Default issued by Recontrust on February 10, 2011. If a court has entered judgment in favor of
2
Plaintiff, Plaintiff is directed to file proof of said judgment.
3
Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to “enter” or obtain a default judgment – the caption to
Plaintiff provides no evidence that a default judgment has been entered, nor does he indicate that any
6
complaint has been filed with respect to which any defendants have defaulted and the Clerk has
7
entered default against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (explaining the standards for entry of default
8
and default judgment). If there is another active case Plaintiff has already initiated against any
9
defendants related to the instant filing, with respect to whom he seeks default judgment, Plaintiff
10
must seek default judgment through that action. If a default judgment has been entered in favor of
11
For the Northern District of California
his filing also states that he is completing an “entry of default judgment by sworn affidavit” –
5
United States District Court
4
Plaintiff in another action, Plaintiff is directed to file proof of said default judgment.
12
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a complaint against certain parties and assert any
13
claims for relief, Plaintiff’s current filing does not do so as it provides no factual assertions or
14
explanations of the relief Plaintiff seeks, and from whom, on what basis. If Plaintiff seeks to file a
15
complaint, Plaintiff is directed to do so in conformance with the requirements of Rule 8 of the
16
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17
Plaintiff is directed to respond to the Court’s order no later than Friday, August 31, 2012.
18
For Plaintiff’s benefit, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,
19
which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court's website located at
20
http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Mr. Harms may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450
21
Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782–9000 extension 8657, for
22
free legal advice regarding his claims.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: August 2, 2012
26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
