Notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK · Doc. 39 · 2025-03-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS 
ADMINISTRATION, 
Defendant. 
No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK 
NOTICE OF APPEAL 
Honorable R. Gary Klausner 
United States District Judge 
 
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
 
​
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, BRANDON JOE 
WILLIAMS®, hereby intends to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit from the final judgment and all orders and rulings of the United States 
District Court for the Central District of California entered in this action. 
 
This Notice of Intent to Appeal is filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules 
of Appellate Procedure, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), and in 
accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 3-1. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
On November 5th, 2024, this case was removed from the foreign State of California to 
the District Court under 28 USC 1442. This District Court entered an Order [Docket No. 
23] dismissing Plaintiff's case for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 12(b)(6). Subsequent motions, including Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to 
Respond to the Motion to Dismiss and also Void Order [Docket No. 27], another Motion 
to Vacate order [Docket No. 32] and the Request to Enter Final Judgment [Docket No. 
37], were denied and stricken by the District Court. The final order denying the Motion 
for Reconsideration and the final order striking Plaintiff's subsequent filings was entered 
on February 27, 2025 [Docket No. 36]. 
 
Plaintiff contends that the District Court erred in both taking the case, jurisdictionally, as 
well as subsequently dismissing the case and in denying subsequent motions and 
objections, thereby failing to provide due consideration to the legal arguments and 
evidence presented. 
 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 39     Filed 03/19/25     Page 1 of 3   Page ID
#:272

 
 
 
II. QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF ORDERS WITHOUT JUDGE'S SIGNATURE 
 
A significant issue to be addressed on appeal is whether the referenced Orders issued by 
this Court, specifically the Order dismissing the case [Docket No. 23], the Order denying 
reconsideration [Docket No. 36], are valid without the signature of the presiding Judge. 
The absence of judicial signatures raises substantial questions about the legitimacy of 
these Orders and whether they comply with the procedural requirements necessary to 
constitute binding judicial determinations. This matter is critical, as it directly impacts 
the Plaintiff's rights and the appeal process. 
 
III. ATTACHMENTS 
 
Plaintiff will attach the following documents as exhibits to this Notice of Intent to 
Appeal: 
 
1.​ Exhibit A - Complete Docket Sheet 
2.​ Exhibit B - Notice of Removal 
3.​ Exhibit C - Order of Dismissal 
4.​ Exhibit D - Objections to Order 
5.​ Exhibit E - Motion for Leave to Respond in Opp to Motion to Dismiss and Void 
Order 
6.​ Exhibit F - Affidavit attached to Motion for Leave to Respond in Opp to Motion 
to Dismiss and Void Order 
7.​ Exhibit G - 2nd Motion to Void Order 
8.​ Exhibit H - Order Denying Both Motions to Void Order and Leave to Respond in 
Opp to Motion to Dismiss 
9.​ Exhibit I - Request for Final Judgement 
10.​Exhibit J - Denial Order for Final Judgement Request 
 
IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE PRESENTED ON APPEAL 
 
The issues to be presented on appeal include but are not limited to: 
 
1.​ Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 
2.​ Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Void Order. 
3.​ Whether the District Court erred in striking Plaintiff’s subsequent filings and 
failing to enter a final judgment that allows for an appeal. 
4.​ Whether the referenced Orders issued by the District Court are valid without the 
signature of the presiding Judge - under L.R. 58-10 or anywhere else. 
5.​ Whether it is possible for the District Court to assume jurisdiction over a case 
 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 39     Filed 03/19/25     Page 2 of 3   Page ID
#:273

 
removed via 28 USC 1442 when the State of which the case is being removed 
from is not a part of the definition of a “State court” in 28 USC 1442(d)(6). 
6.​ Whether a case, of which only contains State causes of action, may be moved 
from a foreign State then subsequently dismissed. 
7.​ Whether California Commercial Code claims can be brought at the Federal level 
when the Uniform Commercial Code has never been codified as Federal law. 
Otherwise, this removal would be destructive to due process due to the causes of 
action not being able to be heard in a Federal venue. 
8.​ Whether a government agency, defined as a United States citizen under 28 USC 
9102(18)(B) may use the sovereign citizen defense of saying it has “sovereign 
immunity.” How can a Federal US citizen have sovereign immunity? 
9.​ Whether a case can be dismissed without oral argument if oral argument was 
requested. 
10.​Whether a pro se litigant should be given more leeway than was given in this case 
- in relation to responding to the Motion to Dismiss, in accordance with Erickson 
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) 
11.​Whether additional information should be made available to a pro se litigant who 
is attempting to learn how to do a better job when his docket items are labeled as 
“unintelligible.” 
12.​Whether the label of “sovereign citizen” has any factual sway or effect on any 
aspect of the ability of the parties to achieve due process or be heard. And, if it 
does, how is that not a destruction of due process if the party is not hostile towards 
the Court? 
13.​Whether an affidavit would be considered to be “new evidence” in relation to any 
motions that would be interpreted by the court to be a Motion for Reconsideration. 
14.​Whether this case was an abuse of discretion due to a gross misapplication of 
Canons 2 and 3 from the “Code of Conduct for United States Judges.” 
 
V. CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals review and reverse the orders of the District Court and order to have this case 
remanded back to the foreign court of State of California. 
 
Dated: March 19, 2025 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS® 
By: /s/ Brandon Joe Williams, agent 
747-273-0799 
brandon@williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com 
PO Box 1962 
Glendale, CA 91209 
 
 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 39     Filed 03/19/25     Page 3 of 3   Page ID
#:274

File and source

File

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-39__id-433631702__Appeal_to_9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals.pdf

Size

135,993 bytes

SHA-256

45f1c83c1d9f430103660852664f90e1bc43e08e1cc18e64ef5b8deb1bbb2474

Our copy

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-39__id-433631702__Appeal_to_9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com