Bobby Len Franklin v. Town of Laughlin, Nevada, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BOBBY LEN FRANKLIN, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00903-GMN-DJA 5 vs. 6 TOWN OF LAUGHLIN, NEVADA, et al. ORDER 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 Pending before the Court are the Motion for Leave to File Document, (ECF No. 64),1 11 and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in this Civil Action, (ECF No. 70), filed by Plaintiff 12 Bobby Len Franklin. 13 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 This case arises out of the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM’s”) denial of 16 Plaintiff’s Desert Land Entry (“DLE”) application in 1988, and Defendants’ alleged fraudulent 17 actions following the denial. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he 18 purchased 80 acres of land pursuant to the Desert Land Entry Act, and about 20 years later, D.J. 19 Laughlin acquired three adverse patents for the same land and transferred the rights to “BWD 20 LLC shell companies.” (Id. ¶¶ 6–7). He further alleges that Mr. Laughlin paid his attorney, 21 Defendant Urga, to convince Judge Sandoval to omit Plaintiff’s existing patent rights from 22 pretrial discovery, which led to Judge Sandoval granting ownership of the land to the shell 23 24 1 This is Plaintiff’s second filed Motion for Leave to File Document. Plaintiff filed another Motion for Leave to File Document, (ECF No. 63), which is identical to his second motion except that it does not include as an 25 exhibit a copy of Judge Hunt’s Order in Franklin v. Chatterton, No. 2:07-cv-01400-RLH-RJJ, 2008 WL 11451136 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2008). The Court thus STRIKES the Motion for Leave to File Document, (ECF No. 63), from the docket as a duplicate. 1 companies. (Id. ¶ 8). Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and 2 Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). (Id. ¶¶ 20–23). In 2008, Judge Hunt enjoined Plaintiff 3 from filing further civil actions based on his 1988 DLE application without first obtaining leave 4 of the Court. (See Order Granting Mot. Dismiss 2:10–12, ECF No. 62); (Judge Hunt Order, Ex. 5 1 to Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7-1). 6 The Court granted Defendant Town of Laughlin, Nevada’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 7 Complaint, (ECF No. 7), because Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of Court or certify that his 8 claims had not yet been raised or disposed of by a federal court, as required by Judge Hunt’s 9 Order. (Order Granting Mot. Dismiss 4:14–15). Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant motions 10 seeking leave from the Court to file his Proposed Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 64-3). 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), empowers federal district courts to enjoin 13 vexatious litigants who have a history of abusing the court’s limited resources. See De Long v. 14 Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the All Writs Act, a district court can 15 order a person with lengthy histories of abusive litigation—a vexatious litigant—to obtain leave 16 of the court before filing any future lawsuits. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 17 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a)). To enjoin a vexatious litigant, a party 18 must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. Courts must 19 then set forth an adequate record for review and make “substantive findings about the frivolous 20 or harassing nature of the plaintiff’s litigation.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. The pre-filing order 21 must be narrowly tailored to the vexatious litigant’s wrongful behavior.” Id. at 1061. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 In Franklin v. Chatterton, No. 2:07-cv-01400-RLH-RJJ, 2008 WL 11451136 (D. Nev. 24 Apr. 21, 2008), Judge Hunt ordered that Plaintiff may not file any civil action based on his

25 1988 DLE application or the property at issue without first obtaining leave of the Court. Id. at 1 *3. In seeking leave of the Court, Judge Hunt ordered that Plaintiff must “submit a copy of this 2 Order with his proposed complaint, and certify and demonstrate that the claims he wishes to 3 present are new claims never before raised and disposed of by any federal court.” Id. 4 Here, the Court construes both Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Document and 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in this Civil Action as one motion for leave of the Court to file his 6 Proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiff properly attaches Judge Hunt’s Order to his Motion 7 for Leave and includes a certification that the claims raised in his Proposed Amended 8 Complaint have not yet been raised or disposed of by a federal court. (Decl. Certification, Ex. 2 9 to Mot. Leave File Doc., ECF No. 64–2). However, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to 10 demonstrate that these claims have never been raised before. 11 Judge Hunt’s Order unambiguously required Plaintiff not only to certify that any claims 12 contained in a complaint had never been raised before a federal court, but to demonstrate the 13 same. Franklin, 2008 WL 11451136 at *3. Here, Plaintiff merely asserts that these claims are 14 new, providing nothing to convince the Court that he has not raised these claims in the past. 15 Judge Hunt’s Order, filed in 2008, catalogued six lawsuits filed by Plaintiff relating to his 1988 16 DLE application or the property at issue. See id. at *1–*2. Nearly two decades have passed 17 since the entry of Judge Hunt’s Order. Plaintiff does not inform the Court whether he has filed 18 any cases in the interim, nor the kinds of claims raised in those cases. It is not the job of the 19 Court to sift through every potential case filed by Plaintiff to verify that he has in fact not 20 previously raised the claims presented in his Proposed Amended Complaint before a federal 21 court. See, e.g., U-Haul Co. of Nevada, Inc. v. Gregory J. Kramer, Ltd., No. 2:12-cv-00231- 22 KJD-CWH, 2013 WL 4505800, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2013) (citing Indep. Towers of 23 Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)). Rather, as specified in Judge 24 Hunt’s Order, it is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate to this Court that the claims he wishes to

25 raise are in fact new. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Leave, but grants 1 || Plaintiff leave to amend. 2 ||IV. CONCLUSION 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Document, (ECF 4 63), is STRICKEN. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Document, 6 || (ECF No. 64), is DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in this Civil 8 || Action, (ECF No. 70), is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the date of this 10 || Order to file for leave of Court and demonstrate that the claims contained in his Proposed 11 |] Amended Complaint have not yet been raised or disposed of by a federal court by: (1) 12 ||including a list of each action filed by Plaintiff in federal court relating to his 1988 DLE 13 || application or the property at issue, (2) listing all claims raised in each of those cases, and (3) 14 || explaining how the current claims are different than before. 15 16 DATED this © day of February, 2026. 17 18 Gloria M. arro, District Judge 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 4 of 4