Storix v. Johnson | Civil Rights Suit (Federal)


The blatant judicial abuse in the Common Counts Suit was the final straw that gave rise to a federal Civil Rights Suit against all the judges and attorneys (and their clients) who repeatedly violated Johnson's right to due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy to deprive his civil rights against judges:

Judge Marilyn Huff, Judge Randa Trapp, Judge Katherine Bacal, Judge Kevin Enright

Procopio attorneys:

Paul Tyrell, Sean Sullivan

Wilson/Elser attorneys:

Michael McCloskey, David Aveni, Marty Ready

Their clients (aka "Storix Management"):

David Huffman, Manuel Altamirano, Richard Turner, David Kinney, David Smiljkovich

and a common count claim (previously dismissed in State court) for "money had and received" against:

Storix, Inc.


Soon after the case was randomly assigned to a federal judge (who was not a defendant), it was transferred to Judge Todd Robinson on his first day as a newly appointed judge (he was formerly a criminal prosecutor). Judge Robinson allowed a hearing on the defendants' five separate motions to dismiss (see transcript below) where Johnson argued that none of the defendants' defenses (including the judges) were supported by the cases they cited, and that any ssertions that his complaint lacked sufficient facts could be easily cured by amendment. There were five attorneys representing the various defendants at the hearing, none of which disputed any of Johnson's arguments.


The court nevertheless granted all the defendants' motions to dismiss (for failure to state a claim) without leave to amend except one - the "money had and received" (common count)  claim against Storix for the $475,000 of Johnson's earnings. Judge Robinson dismissed the claim for failure to allege "indebtedness" but allowed Johnson leave to amend, but reserved on other grounds to dismiss the claim.

Johnson amended the complaint (which then only included the one remaining claim against Storix) to state additional facts showing that Storix is indebted to him, which Storix then challenged with another motion to dismiss. Johnson opposed the motion with clear law that defeated Storix's defense, but Judge Robinson vacated the hearing and never ruled on the motion.



In January 2022, the case was reassigned to another new judge. Judge Ohta previously served as a Califonia superior court judge for one hear before taking a life-term seat on the federal bench. After the clerk failed to return a phone call for weeks, Johnson finally filed a motion to request a status hearing on the motions that  had been pending in Judge Robinson's court between 8 and 16 months prior to the case transfer. Johnson was delighted whenJudge Ohta scheduled a hearing on the motions for only three weeks later. But his hopes of finally having an honest and unbiased judge were dashed the moment she read her tentative ruling and then ignored everything in Johnson's papers and everything said at the hearing.

Similarly ignoring all undisputed facts and law, she dismissed the final claim against Storix by saying a claim for "money had and received" was duplicative of the "conversion" claim in the prior Malicious Prosecution Suit even though they involved different defendants & different set of facts. No one denied that Storix owes Johnson the $475,000, but Judge Ohta effectively decided that Storix gets to keep all the money because he brought the prior Conversion Case to get it back from Management (who stole the money from Storix)!

Judge Ohta could not find a legitimate reason to grant Storix's motion to declare Johnson a vexatious litigant, but nevertheless reprimanded Johnson repeately for "harassing" the defendants with the 2015 "Buckle Up Boys" email because it threatened them with litigation! She denied the VL motion without prejudice so Procopio could file it again should Johnson ever send another angry email or threaten to sue them (or a judge) again.





Nearly a dozen of the defendants' motions were all granted, and all claims were once again dismissed without leave to amend, without reference to a single fact or allegation in the complaint, and without allowing any evidence to be presented.