Schenck

Schenck v. Brown CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 2015A141792California2,210 words

Opinion

Opinion

Needham, J.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Schenck’s Petition in the Trial Court On December 13, 2013, Schenck commenced the underlying proceeding in the Mendocino County Superior Court by filing a “Petition for Rehearing Under Rule 44” (Petition). The Petition, viewed by the court and the parties as a complaint, purported to assert numerous causes of action against individuals and governmental entities, including allegations that the Marin County Superior Court, the governor, and others violated his civil rights and due process rights; the defendants in a prior lawsuit defaulted; the state

1 and law enforcement retaliated against him and his family; a police officer kidnapped and raped his wife; he did not receive compensation from the victims compensation board; the state contractors board revoked his contractor’s license; a police officer committed extortion; and other matters. On January 30, 2014, Schenck filed a proof of service indicating that a process server had served “CA. Dept. of Corrections, Jeffrey Beard” by substituted service on January 24, 2014, by leaving copies of specified documents with an adult at Beard’s business address (1515 S Street, Sacramento, CA) and mailing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.