Judge Joseph Francis DeVanon Bar No. 70629
License Status: Inactive
Recipient: Pasadena Bar Association Judge of the Year, 2006•
Former member: California Judges Association, California Court Commissioners Association.(Note Former)
Address: Joseph F DeVanon, 653 Welsh Partridge Cir, Biltmore Lake, NC 28715-8965
County: Non-California County
Phone Number: (310) 284-8224
Fax Number: Not Available
Law School: Western State Univ; CA
J.D., 1976, Western State University School of Law, Fullerton, CA
B.A., 1972, Political Science, USC
Judge De Vanon was appointed to the Superior Court in 1996 and was assigned a civil calendar at the Pasadena Courthouse for the last nine years. During the past few years, Judge De Vanon worked with the Pasadena Bar on a settlement program.
This dishonorable judge was removed from the Pasadena court house (lost his bar license) but as usual the bar keeps his records hidden from the public. But he still is working as a judge in the private legal sector
Judge Joseph DeVanon
Alternative Resolution Center is where all the dishonorable judges go when forced to retire or depart the bar
“It’s not the kind of thing you ever expect, so when it happens you’re deeply appreciative for the governor’s vote of confidence and the support of all the people along the way,” said DeVanon, 40.
A Los Angeles County Municipal Court commissioner since March, 1986, DeVanon worked as a deputy public defender for Los Angeles County from 1977 to 1986. A 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California, he received his law degree from Western State University Law School in 1976.
Effective June 1, 2012, Department NE S, Pasadena Courthouse, 300 E. Walnut St. 91101 will be converted into a settlement court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. DeVanon, Jr. Department NE S’ inventory of cases will be reassigned to Department NE R, and to the North Central District’s Departments NC A, NC B (Burbank Courthouse, 300 E. Olive 91502), NC D, and NC E (Glendale Courthouse, 600 E. Broadway 91206). Existing dates on calendar will remain. Notice of judicial reassignment will be given by the Clerk.
Limited civil cases currently assigned to Department NE R and Department NE S will be transferred to Department NE A. Existing dates on calendar will remain. Notice of judicial reassignment will be given at the time of hearing.
For further information, call 626-356-5691.
DeVanon has lived in the San Gabriel Valley since 1953, when his family moved from Chicago. He and his wife, Madelyn, have three children: Joseph, 13, Laura, 10, and Nicole, 3.
Salary for municipal judges is $86,157 a year. Full Story
More INFO ABOUT
Mulji Patelv. Joseph F DeVanon et al
Jose Castaneda v. Joseph F DeVanon et al
ESTATE OF CASTANEDA v. L.A.S.C.
JOSE CASTANEDA V. JUDGE JOSEPH F. DEVANON JR., JUDGE RITA “SUNNY” MILLER, COMM. ANTHONY B. DREWRY
Judge DeVanon lies at hearing: “He never contacted the court” this is a lie proven by substitution of attorney on the file, but withheld because Judge DeVanon received a bribe!
Commissioner Drewry also is bribed as he grants TRO with lies provided by attorneys Paz, Berke and my own dirty attorney Jack Kenneth Conway. I basically paid Conway to plead me guilty! Had I known that, I would have saved $10,000 by doing it myself!
Judge Rita Miller then sanctions me almost a million dollars on a free speech case!
Lastly, Judge Hickok is also bribed to order that I be a Vexatious Litigant with 2 fake cases! This is the equivalent of a police officer planting drugs or a gun on a citizen to secure a conviction!
Justice is for sale in our courts!
I am also offering assistance for anyone to represent themselves in court.
Blume-Casta Paralegal Assistance
Accepting all donations to fight corruption in our courts
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND SETTING PRE-FILING RESTRICTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.
In January 2019, Jose Castaneda filed this lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Superior Court (“LASC”), two former LASC judges, and more than 10 attorneys for their alleged roles in contested state probate matters and related lawsuits decided against plaintiff. See, e.g., LASC Case Nos. GP013531, GP003849, GP013952, GC042105, GC039459, BC402096, GC047300, BC466737. But plaintiff filed a nearly identical federal lawsuit just last year that the Court dismissed as frivolous. See Estate of Castaneda, et al. v. L.A.S.C., et al., No. 2:18-cv-6795-FMO, Dkt 6 (Aug. 13, 2018). Plaintiff then appealed that dismissal, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous. See CA9 Appeal No. 18-56199 (Dec. 20, 2018).
This case, in fact, is plaintiff’s fifth attempt since 2011 to find a federal forum to challenge adverse state court decisions from contested probate matters. And in all cases, plaintiff’s claims were summarily dismissed because they lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. See, e.g., Castaneda v. Judge Joseph F. DeVanon, et al., No. 2:11-cv-4968, Dkt 3 (July 7, 2011); Castaneda, et. al. v. LA and Orange County Superior Courts, et al., No. 2:12-cv-7657, Dkt 2 (Sept. 25, 2012); Castaneda, et al. v. Officers of the Superior Court, et al., 2:14-cv-3179, Dkt 3 (May 12, 2014). So, for instance, when plaintiff sought in forma pauperis in connection with his appeal of the dismissal of his 2012 lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit denied the request because it found the appeal was frivolous, as well. See CA9 Appeal No. 12-56906 (Jan. 24, 2013) (“Appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because we find that the appeal is frivolous.”).
For these reasons, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant under Local Rule 83-8. (Dkt 37). In that order, he was reminded why this case — like the four before it — cannot proceed in federal court because, among other reasons, it amounts to an impermissible appeal from state court orders over which federal courts have no jurisdiction. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff was given the chance to dismiss this lawsuit voluntarily to avoid vexatious litigant designation. (Id.). Yet while he responded to the order to show cause — with a response titled in part “Petition to Order all parties to respond in theft of Estate Property” — plaintiff provided no basis to excuse his vexatious litigation history in this Court. (See, generally, Dkt 40). As a result, this action must be dismissed, and plaintiff must be given vexatious-litigation restrictions in accordance with Local Rule 83-8.