9th Circuit COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT PREVENTIVE INJUNCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Lee & Suesie Hempfling, Pro Se Apache Junction, AZ 85120 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LEE HEMPFLING &
SUESIE HEMPFLING , Plaintiffs, vs. M. Lando VOYLES (Kent Volkmer) , BOYD T. JOHNSON.
BRADLEY M. SOOS, (VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED) MARK BRNOVICH,
LORETTA LYNCH (VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED) Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: CV-16-3213-PHX-ESW

PERMANENT
PREVENTIVE
INJUNCTION
AND
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT PREVENTIVE
INJUNCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.
The parties to this complaint

A: The Plaintiffs

Plaintiff No. 1

LEE HEMPFLING

Apache Junction, AZ 85120

Plaintiff No. 2

SUESIE HEMPFLING

Apache Junction, AZ 85120

B: The Defendants

Defendant No. 1

M. LANDO VOYLES; in official capacity

County Attorney

Pinal County

Florence, AZ 85132

Defendant No. 2

BOYD T. JOHNSON, Judge Retired; in official capacity

Pinal County

Superior Court Administration

Florence, AZ 85132

Defendant No. 3

BRADLEY M. SOOS, Judge Pro Tem; in official capacity (VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED)

Pinal County

Superior Court Administration

Florence, AZ 85132

Defendant No. 4

MARK BRNOVICH; in official capacity

Attorney General of Arizona

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Defendant No. 5

LORETTA LYNCH; in official capacity (VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED)

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice Building

Washington, DC 20530-0001

II.
Basis for Jurisdiction

Federal Question in 42 U.S.C. § 1983: 14th Amendment Due
Process Clause. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases allow a suit against any public
employee who
“subjects, or causes to be subjected” someone to a deprivation of
federal constitutional rights. Judicial positions in this action are
those who subjected
Plaintiffs to 14th Amendment violations, while prosecutorial
entities are those who caused or may have caused Plaintiffs to be so
subjected. As a general
rule, absolute judicial immunity does not bar an award of
prospective injunctive relief (Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42
(1984) ). “…although,
prospective relief awarded against a state officer also
‘implicate[s] Eleventh Amendment concerns,’ Mansour, 474 U.S. at 474 U.
S. 68, the interests in
‘end[ing] a continuing violation of federal law,’ ibid., outweigh
the interests in state sovereignty and justify an award under § 1983 of
an injunction
that operates against the State’s officers or even directly against
the State itself. (Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58
(1989)).

III.
Notice

Notice is hereby given to all parties that this action is brought
under F.R.C.P. Rule 65 seeking permanent preventive injunction and
F.R.C.P. Rule 56
seeking summary judgment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivation of 14th Amendment rights to procedural due process. As this
is an action brought
against judicial officers, it is imperative to note that NO
declaratory relief is available.

IV.
Statement of Claim

A:
The events giving rise to this complaint took place in Pinal County Superior Court, Pinal County Arizona.

B:
The events giving rise to this complaint took place on or near May 3, 2012 and/or March 25, 2014 and continue to this day.

C:
Four conditions exist that contribute to the denial of procedural due process to the Plaintiffs.

1:
A judgment has been ‘entered’ on the docket (Docket Screen Shot 1,
see Brief attachments) thereby rendering the delay of two and one half
years: a
postponement of the proceedings of the enforcement of that judgment.
An “ordinary mode prescribed by law” exists (Hagar v. Reclamation Dist)
to postpone
the proceedings of the enforcement of a judgment, which constitutes
due process that cannot be ignored by imposing a simple ‘closure’ and
blocking any
objection to it. F.R.C.P. Rule 62.

2:
The court has ‘closed’ the case. An administrative closure is “a
postponement of proceedings,” rather than “a termination.” S. La.
Cement, Inc. v. Van
Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V., 383 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir. 2004).
Imposing a closing as a means of postponement, rather than the required
stay, denies
procedural due process to the Plaintiffs as that process is dictated
to be a ‘stay’ in F.R.C.P. Rule 62.

3:
The court has vacated all future hearings. The combination of closed
and vacated hearings, denies procedural due process to the Plaintiffs.

4:
There is no legal justification to postpone proceedings to enforce
the existing judgment. There are no outstanding questions. There are no
resources,
hearings, requirements or any other case related informations
pending or waiting to be presented. No motions under rules 50, 52, 59
exist in the case.
Motion under rule 60 is the subject of the Special Action, which was
mandated on March 10, 2014. No entry has ever been made in any order of
the court
expressly determining that there is no just reason for delay. There
is no external related issue or case that has any bearing on the instant
case in the
Superior Court.

V.
Irreparable Injury

Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injuries through the imposition of the denial of the Plaintiffs’ 14th
Amendment rights of Due Process. The
March 25, 2014 court order prohibiting any future hearings precludes
asking that court for any reopening of the case or request that Rule 62
to followed
properly. The court was moved for a default order with nothing
served in response. The case is not related in any legal manner to any
potential parallel
criminal proceeding and cannot be legally withheld. The lack of a
proper stay of the case, with its corresponding rights to notice,
objection and appeal
cannot be undone and is irreparable. That delay has meant Superior
Court defendants have dissipated assets, sold assets, redistributed
assets and have
gravely reduced the ability to collect a judgment (the case IS a
default, see Docket Screem Shot 2, brief attachments) with each day
adding to the degree
of difficulty and additional cost of that task.

VI.
Summary Judgment

As no material fact necessary to decide this motion can be disputed,
and that based on the undisputed facts, Plaintiffs are entitled to
judgment as a
matter of law and do hereby move the Court to enter Summary Judgment
under F.R.C.P. Rule 56 in favor of the Plaintiffs for the violation of
14th
Amendment procedural due process rights and in so doing, cause the
issuance of the permanent preventive injunction to stop the ongoing
deprivation of due
process from all parties named herein.

VII.
Relief

The Plaintiffs request the court to issue a permanent injunction
ordering the Defendants to stop violating the Plaintiffs’ 14th
Amendment rights
of procedural Due Process by issuing the existing adjudication and
final order of the case without delay. It is impossible to go back and
undue the refusal
of the court to grant Plaintiffs the right to imposition of Rule
62’s stay, and its right to object to any stay and appeal any stay,
therefore all that can
be done, is to stop that delay by issuing the entered judgment in
the case and any final orders in the case and completing the over
5-year-old defaulted
case. Plaintiffs further request that the court dismiss from this
case any prosecutorial defendant deemed to not be involved in
this matter.
Plaintiffs afforded all parties the ability to not be included in
this action if they were not involved. Not one responded. But that still
requires any
that may not be involved be dismissed from this action at the
specific prosecutorial defendant’s request and the court’s discretion. We further ask
that defendants equally share in reimbursing our court filing fees for this action.

VIII.
Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, we
certify to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief that this
complaint: (1) is
not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) is supported by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying,
or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary
support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
and (4) the
complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

A: Pro Se Parties

We agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to our
address where case-related papers may be served. We understand that our
failure to keep a
current address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the
dismissal of our case.

Dated this 20th of September, 2016.

LEE HEMPFLING, Pro Se APACHE JUNCTION, AZ 85120 SUESIE HEMPFLING, Pro Se APACHE JUNCTION, AZ 85120