Judge James L.Baker Jr.Denied My Rights to Meaningful Access to the Courts, Due Process of Law and Equal Protection Under the Law---Chris Langdon  qiology@aol.com  Judge James L. Baker Jr. Denied My Constitutional Rights - Intentional or Un-intentional?         I attempted to obtain relief from the alleged judgment in Langdon v. NCDOT in an Independent Action (case no. 03-CVS-173, Polk County N.C.).   A careful reading of Page 2 of this website clearly indicates why the purported judgment in Langdon v. NCDOT is void. The NCDOT, through attorneys Roy Cooper, Robert Crawford and Lisa Glover filed a motion to dismiss my Independent Action.  The motion was granted because of fraud on the court by the N.C. attorneys Roy Cooper, Robert Crawford and Lisa Glover, and because of Judge James L. Baker Jr.'s denial of my constitutional rights.        Judge James L. Baker Jr. granted the motion to dismiss in a sham proceeding, in violation of my constitutional rights. I wrote N.C. Judge James L. Baker Jr. a letter giving him the opportunity to explain his actions before I made my charges against him public.  The letter states:       " I am writing you concerning your violations of my rights to: due process of law;  equal protection under the law; and meaningful access to the courts, in case 03-CVS-173.  Those violations were intentional and/or you're incompetent.  Before I go public with my accusations, I wish to afford you with the opportunity to respond, an opportunity you never afforded me in court.  Your granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss violated the aforementioned rights for numerous reasons, including the following:  (1)  you failed to liberally construe my pro se pleadings and draw all inferences in my favor;  (2)  you denied me an opportunity to amend my Complaint, despite the liberal policy of allowing amendments to complaints in N.C.;  (3)  you failed to take my factual allegations as true;    (4)  you allowed the NCDOT attorneys to plead for some who are not party to the case;  (5)  you refused to join the necessary parties;  (6)  you refused to declare the purported judgment void for failure to join necessary parties, as required by N.C. law;  (7)  you failed to exercise the proper legal standards when considering a motion to dismiss.  The movant must prove that the Plaintiff's complaint is a claim for which relief cannot be granted.  My complaint was an Independent Action for relief from a void judgment which is a claim for which relief may be granted.  Whether or not the relief should be granted is a separate question that cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss;  (8)  you converted the defendant's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment by considering matters outside the pleading and by purporting to rule on the merits of the case, without giving me the required notice and time to respond;  (9) you illegally moved the hearing to settle the Record on on Appeal to another county to, for your own conveneince twice.  You had no jurisdiction to do so.  Furthermore, I had no written notice of the purported hearing , only a few days verbal notice.  I was not given the street address and the city where the purported hearing was held; and  (10)  you made the purported ruling without adequate time for consideration. You intentionally refused to apply the law because I was appearing pro se and I was suing your employer, the State of North Carolina.  If you can't put your biases aside and rule fairly, you shouldn't be a judge.  It is obvious that you do not have the qualifications required of a judge.  I hope that you don't plan to to seek re-election.  Sincerely, Christopher Langdon."       Judge Baker received that letter on January 6th, 2006 and he hasn't denied my charges, because they are true (I am writing this on January 25th, 2006).  My letter did not include all of Baker's violations of my Constitutional rights. Judge Baker is like the other judges I have encountered in the North Carolina Courts.  He won't allow a pro se party  (someone acting as his own attorney) to have a fair hearing.  He simply used whatever illegal excuse he could drum up to get rid of me.  I believe that his failure to apply the law properly was intentional.  He has had 22 days to deny my allegations and he hasn't done so. He hasn't even attempted to contact me to discuss it.  In North Carolina, if you can't afford an attorney for a civil case, you have no rights.  The same is true in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Judge Thornburgh) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (See: Page 1 at the top of the menu).       I filed my Independent Action for relief from the purported judgment in Langdon v. NCDOT, 98-CVS-139. I asked for a 30 day continuance in order to amend my Complaint.  At the time I was suffering from a severe case of the flu.  I was severely ill for a month.  Also, members of my family were, and are, suffering from more serious illnesses.  Additionally, I was engaged in prosecuting my Complaints, Langdon v. Swain and Langdon v. Tippett, in the federal courts (See: Home Page).         There are a large number of issues in this matter.  The fraud by the North Carolina Department of Transporation  (NCDOT) and its engineers, NCDOT attorneys Robert Crawford, Lisa Glover, T.L. Mallonee, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, has made this matter extremely complicated. Roy Cooper, Robert Crawford and LisaGlover filed their motion to dismiss at the same time they filed an answer, which is not proper, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (North Carolina modeled its rules on the federal rules and follows the federal courts' interpretations of those rules).       "Motion to dismiss must be filed before responsive pleading (answer) is filed."  Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Alla Medical Service, Inc., 855 F.2d 1470, 1475 (9th Cir. 1988).       "Motion to dismiss for failue to state a claim was rendered moot by filing of answer."  Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, 709 F. Supp. 1146, 1147 (S.D.Fla. 1989).       My Motion for a 30 day extension of time to amend was filed 115 days after I filed my Independent Action for relief from the purported judgment in Langdon v. NCDOT.  My motion for more time to amend was filed only 59 days after the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed. Therefore, it was timeley filed.  In Estrada v. Jacques, 321 SE 2d 240 (N.C.App. 1984), a party was allowed to amend 507 days after the Complaint was filed and after a summary judgment motion was filed.  In Henry v. Deen, 300 SE 2d 707 (N.C. App. 1983), the court held that it was error for the trial court to deny a motion to amend, although it was filed 158 days after the the Complaint was filed. In Coffey v. Coffey, 381 SE 2d 467 (N.C.App. 1989),  the court held that it was error not to allow an amendment to a complaint 112 days after it was filed.        Amendments are allowed under Rule 15 of N.C. Rules of Civ. Proc. The N.C. Courts look to the federal courts and the New York Courts for interpretation of its rules.  They liberally allow amendments to Complaints, especially pro se civil rights complaints like mine.        "..the Rules of Civil Procedure achieve their purpose of insuring a speedy trial by providing for and encouraging liberal amendments to pleadings under Rule 15."  Carolina Builders v. Gelder & Associates, 289 SE 2d 628, 629 (NC App. 1982).        "..leave to amend shall be freeely given when justice so requires is mandate to be heeded." Foman v. Davis, 83 S.CT. 227, 228 [5] (1962).        "What might be a meritorious claim on the part of a pro se litigant unversed in the law should not be defeated without affording the pleader a reasonable opportunity to articulate his case...  trial court erred in denying pro se plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, notwithstanding fact that plaintiff did not state in his motion for leave how he would cure the deficiencies in his pleadings."  Gordon v. Leake, 574 F. 2d 1147, 1148 (4th Cir. 1978).        Motions to dismiss are not usually granted.     "Motions to dismiss pleadings are to be granted sparingly and with caution."  Kingwood Oil Co. v. Bell, 204 F. 2d 8, 13 (7th Cir. 1953).       See also:  Hartley v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 72 (E.D.Wisc. 1996) (Defendant allowed to amend answer 21 months after the answer was filed).    Cornwall v. U.S. Const. Mfg. Co., 800 F. 2d 250 (Fed. Crt. of App. 1986) (Defendant should have been allowed to amend on the eve of the trial);  Island Creek Coal Co. v. Lake Shore, Inc., 832 F. 2d 274 (4th Cir.1987) (Plaintiff should have been allowed to amend his complaint 3 &  1/2 years after it was filed);  Eades v. Thompson, 823 F. 2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1987) (inmate should have been allowed to amend his complaint a third time).  Brandon v. Holt, 105 S.Ct. 873 (1985) (allowed to amend before the U.S. Supreme Court);  Satchell v. Dillworth, 745 F. 2d 781 (2nd Cir. 1984) ( pro se plaintiff should be allowed to amend complaint, even if request is made after dismissal);  Karim-Panari v. L.A. Police Dept., 839 F. 2d 621 (9th Cir. 1988) ( pro se party should be given statement of complaint's deficiencies before dismissal).        The federal courts usually require that a pro se party be given an opportunity to amend before a dismissal, even if they haven't asked to amend.        "The motions and recomendations apprised Grayson of his pleadings' deficiencies, but failed to inform him  'expressly' that he could amend his compalint to fix the problem...the District Court erred it should have told him that he had leave to amend his complaint to cure its deficiencies and granted him a set period of time to do so."  Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F. 3d 103, 108-109 (3rd Cir. 2002).             Unfortunately, I was not allowed to amend my complaint, before, or after, its dismissal, nor was I given a list of its purported deficiencies before its dismissal.          Judge Baker didn't give my Complaint, and the motions in the case, a thorough consideration before dismissing my Complaint.  He hadn't reviewed the case until the day of the sham "hearing" and then quickly ruled against me at the conclusion of oral argument.. Clearly, he had prejudged the matter and gave the State of North Carolina what ever it wanted, even if it was illegal or unfair, probably because I did not have an attorney.          In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court is supposed to liberally cosntrue the Plaintiff's Complaint and take its allegations as true.  Atlantic Research Corp. v. Metzer, 330 F. 2d 946 at 946 [1] (4th Cir. 1964); Ware v. Fort, 478 SE 2d 218, 220 (N.C.App. 1996); Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F. 3d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1997). Judge Baker did not take my factual allegations as true and did not liberally construe my Complaint, as required, before dismissing it.  Furthermore, a motion to dismiss is not supposed to decide the merits of a case, as judge Baker purported to do.  A claim that a purported judgemnt is void is a claim upon which relief can be granted, as Judge Baker must be well aware.  Whether or not the relief from the purported judgment should be granted is a separate question.            "When a federal court reviews sufficiency of complaint, before reception of any evidence.. issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether claimant is entitled to to offer evidence to support claims."  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683at 1683 (1974)   Therefore, I can only conclude that Judge Baker intentionally dismissed my case for fraudulent reasons, or, that he is extremely ignorant of the law.  I doubt that he is that ignorant of the law.       Cooper, Crawford and Glover filed a motion to dismiss and an answer at the same time. However, a motion to dismiss must be filed before an answer is filed. See: Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Alla Medical Service, Inc., 855 F. 2d 1470, 1475 (9th Cir. 1988).         There were many improprieties in the sham hearing in this case. Even worse violations of my rights came after the sham hearing, when I appealed the court's purported judgment (which is void).  A hearing was set to settle the Record on Appeal. That hearing was illegally set in a distant county, not in Polk County, where my property is located, and where the so-called hearing was had.         Judge Baker had purported to illegally move the venue for the hearing to a distant county.  I received notice of this illegal change of venue by telephone, not in writing, as required by N.C. law.  The verbal notice was made on a Friday for the following Monday, giving me less than the 5 days notice required by N.C. law.  Certainly, I wasn't given enough notice to drop everything and travel from Florida to North Carolina.  Also,  I was only told what county the sham hearing was in. I was not told the name of the city, nor the address of the building the hearing was in.          "..the venue is considered 'local' because the action must be tried in the county where which is the situs of the land whose title is affected by the action.  Thompson v. Horell, 272 NC 503, 504-505, 158 SE 2d 633, 634 (1968)."  Snow v. Yates, 392 S,E, 2d 767, 768 [1,2] (1990)       One can only come the conclusion that Judge Baker is grossly ignorant of the law and/or that he is grossly lacking in ethics. Judge Baker dsispenses what is commonly referred to as "redneck justice."  That means that, regardless of the law, you're wrong. He's not the first redneck judge to step all over the rights of citizens who can't afford an attorney.      I did write Judge Baker about this matter on December 31st, 2005.  He didn't respond until five weeks after receiving it, on February 10th, 2006.  He claimed he didn't remember the case.  Considering how long he took to respond, it's clear that he didn't want to remember it.