People of the State of California
Filed 6/25/12 Moore v. The People of the State of California CA2/7
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
DARRELL L. MOORE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B234484
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC426543)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Rita Miller, Judge.
Affirmed.
Darrell L.
Moore, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance
for Defendants and Respondents.
Darrell L. Moore appeals from the trial court’s order
dismissing the action after Moore
failed to demonstrate he had served the named defendants with the amended
complaint. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2009 Moore,
representing himself, filed a complaint against The People of the State of California,
Scott Kerman and four other individuals, all of whom are alleged to be wardens
or associate wardens of several state correctional facilities. The complaint sought $8 septillion in
damages for breach of contract and violation of state regulations prohibiting
employees of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) from engaging in any employment
or activity inconsistent with or incompatible with employment by the
Department. Moore
amended his complaint twice. The second
amended complaint sought $4 duodecillion in damages.
pleading in the case.
Although
the record on appeal does not include many of the trial court’s orders in the
case, the civil case summary shows the court issued multiple orders during the
pendency of the action admonishing Moore
to file proofs of service before seeking to obtain a default judgment. On May 16, 2011
the trial court denied Moore’s
request for default and issued an order to show cause as to why the case should
not be dismissed for failure to file proofs of service with the court.
proper proofs of service were filed by the next hearing date, the case would be
dismissed.
On June 29, 2011 the court dismissed the
case with prejudice on the ground Moore
had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and rules.
DISCUSSION
Simply put, the substance of
Moore’s appellate brief is incomprehensible, and he has failed to include any
proper citation to the record or pertinent argument or legal authority in
violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) through (C) and
(a)(2)(A) through (C). We
acknowledge a self-represented litigant’s understanding of the rules on appeal
are, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate
attorney’s. Whenever possible, we do not
strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives litigants
of a hearing. However, when, as here,
the total lack of compliance with the California Rules of Court results in our
inability to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s decision, we
cannot ignore the fundamental rules of appellate practice. (See Rappleyea
v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
Because the
trial court’s order is presumptively correct (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564) and Moore
has failed to provide any meaningful argument challenging the court’s order, we
have no choice but to consider his arguments forfeited or abandoned.
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 954 [if appellant fails to raise claims
of reversible error, supported by argument and authority, he may, in the
court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal];
Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [“reviewing court is not required to make an
independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to
support the judgmentâ€]; Kim v. Sumitomo
Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [appellate court “‘is not required to
discuss or consider points which are not argued or which are not supported by
citation to authorities or the record’â€]; accord, Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 546.)
DISPOSITION
The order of
dismissal is affirmed.
PERLUSS,
P. J.
We
concur:
WOODS,
J.
JACKSON,
J.
second amended complaint, like its predecessors, is incomprehensible. Apart from its prayer for $4 duodecillion in
damages and request for $57.5 million in attorney fees, the complaint cites
numerous provisions of the Penal Code, Vehicle Code and Code of Civil
Procedure, as well as United States Bankruptcy Code sections, in support of
nonsensical and indecipherable paragraphs that give little or no indication of
the nature of the action.
previous attempts to obtain a default against various public figures, including
President Barack Obama, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven Spielberg,
“Schmidt family Google†and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa were denied on the
ground the persons against whom default was sought had not been named as
defendants in the complaint.
