California Peremptory Challenge California Challenge for Cause Peremptory Challenge 170.6, or 170.1 - 170.5
Surprisingly, the courts made it easy to recuse a judge prior to a hearing/trial, use this simple 170.6 Form (only for Los Angeles) - before you file ensure you follow all applicable procedures for your court. The complexity to disqualify a judge increases beyond most pro se's abilities if you are forced to file a 170.1 - 170.5 motion ("challenge for cause"); therefore, as I proceed with the disqualification of Judge Richard J. Burdge I will provide information on what I learned. My Case Study will walk you thru the process to file a "Challenge for Cause" and expose areas of correction and simplification. If the process works as intended, Judge Richard J. Burdge will be disqualified for overt bias and other legal grounds which I will disclose through court documents (documents will be posted on this site).
Current Status:
January 19, 2017 - I filed a disqualification statement with facts and significant legal grounds.
January 20, 2017 - Judge Burdge abused his discretion by striking the disqualification statement and erroneously indicating no facts, or legal grounds were provided.
January 26, 2017 - I received the order to strike in the mail, because the court did not follow procedure I was forced to file an extremely complex Writ of Mandate over a weekend (research law and procedure and prepare an extensive legal document).
January 30, 2017 - Under duress (due to insufficient time requirements), I gave it my best attempt and eFiled and mailed my Writ of Mandate.
February 02, 2017 - 2DCA Case No. B280503 created.
February 16, 2017 - 2DCA denied the writ (file attached below).
February 22, 2017 - Petition for Review filed with the CA Supreme Court / CASC (file attached below).
March 22, 2017 The CASC Petition is pending for a month, which is positive...the Supreme Court is contemplating the facts. The facts support the peremptory challenge process; therefore the pro se/access to justice will prevail.
Petition was denied without cause.
Please Note: I was told by numerous attorney's they will not file a "challenge for cause", because #1 most judges will not apply the law #2 challenge for cause motions will anger the judge and it will result in favoritism towards the other party...They were correct. Next Steps: If the court will not apply the law and are creating an environment of hostility towards those who are following the letter of the law - the law must change. When the court does not apply clear an unambiguous law (as it reads to the general public) a "muddling of the law" occurs and the complexity significantly increases, which places the self-represented in a position to fail (i.e. the law becomes a complex interpretation of case law, which only attorney's can comprehend). To fix the problem, I will work with the CASC and Judicial Council to work towards necessary amendments and simplification to ensure the "Challenge for Cause" process is no longer a point of failure for Pro Se litigants.
My Goals: Please see my "draft" candidate website - http://www.anthonylocatelli.com/I am running for the 2018 San Diego County Board of Supervisors (influential position for our local courts), because the site is under draft/development please provide your feedback!
California Peremptory Challenge to Disqualification a Judge; Challenge for Cause under California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1; CCP. §170.1 | CCP. §170.3; 170.1 Motion | 170.3 Motion | Disqualification statement