Brigette Huit v. Frank Trevino

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00632
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 BRIGETTE HUIT, ) Case No. CV 22-00632 (JEM) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. ) ) 14 FRANK TREVINO, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff Brigette Huit (also known as Brigette Michelle Huit and 18 Brigette Michelle Huit Brownbey) lodged a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 (“Complaint”), along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Request”). The Court 20 has recommended to the District Judge that the IFP Request be denied because the 21 Complaint is legally and/or factually patently frivolous. 22 As set forth more fully below, Plaintiff is far from a first-time litigant in this Court. 23 Rather, she has previously filed at least nine other actions in the Central District since 2019 24 raising claims similar to those advanced in the instant Complaint. Each of these actions has 25 been meritless and resolved against her, and it is clear that going forward Plaintiff will continue 26 to abuse the judicial process and consume this Court's time and resources with frivolous 27 litigation. 28 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document9 Filed 02/07/22 Page2of9 Page ID #:33

1 Accordingly, the Court finds that it is appropriate to warn Plaintiff that she may be 2|| deemed a vexatious litigant. This Order places Plaintiff on notice that the Court is considering 3|| a vexatious litigant order that will impose pre-filing conditions upon her before she may file any 4] future IFP application, complaint, or petition with this Court. S| I. APPLICABLE LAW REGARDING VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS 6 “Federal courts can ‘regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully 7| tailored restrictions under . . . appropriate circumstances.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of 8|| Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 9] 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated 10 || because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used 11 || to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.3d at 1148; see also 12 | Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting De Long). 13 || However, because restricting access to the courts is a “serious matter,” Ringgold-Lockhart, 14| 761 F.3d at 1061, district courts should enter a pre-filing order only after a “cautious review of 15 || the pertinent circumstances. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. 16 Local Rule 83-8 governs vexatious litigant determinations in the Central District. It 17 | provides: 18 On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be 19 heard, the Court may, at any time, order a party to give security in such 20 amount as the Court determines to be appropriate to secure the payment 21 of any costs, sanctions or other amounts which may be awarded against a 22 vexatious litigant, and may make such other orders as are appropriate to 23 control the conduct of a vexatious litigant. Such orders may include, 24 without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from 25 the litigant without payment of normal filing fees and/or without written 26 authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued 27 upon such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the judge may 28 require.

Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document9 Filed 02/07/22 Page3of9 Page ID #:34

□ Local Rule 83-8.2. “Any order issued under [Local Rule]. 83-8.2 shall be based on a finding 2|| that the litigant to whom the order is issued has abused the Court’s process and is likely to 3 continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken.” Local Rule 83-8.3; see also 4 DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147 (To support a vexatious litigant finding, “[a]t the least, the records needs to show, in some manner, that the litigant’s activities were numerous or abusive.”). 6 In making a vexatious litigant finding, a district court must “comply with certain 7] procedural and substantive requirements” set forth by the Ninth Circuit before imposing pre- 8 || filing restrictions. Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062. 9 First, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the order is 10 entered. Second, the district court must compile an adequate record for review. Third, 11 the district court must make substantive findings about the frivolous or harassing nature 12 of the plaintiff's litigation. Finally, the vexatious litigant order must be narrowly tailored 13 to closely fit the specific vice encountered. 14] De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 15 While the first two requirements are procedural, the latter two are substantive, and a 16 | “separate set of considerations” may provide a “helpful framework” in “‘applying the two 17 | substantive factors.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058). 18] These substantive considerations are: 19 (1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, 20 harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., 21 does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the 22 litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense 23 to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; 24 and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other 25 parties. 26] Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)). 27] According to the Ninth Circuit, "[t]he final consideration — whether other remedies ‘would be 28

Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:35

1 adequate to protect the courts and other parties' is particularly important." Ringgold-Lockhart, 2 761 F.3d at 1062. 3 The Court addresses these factors below. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard 6 The Court hereby notifies Plaintiff that it is considering a vexatious litigant order for the 7 reasons set forth in this Order. As discussed below, Plaintiff must file a written response no 8 later than February 21, 2022, explaining why she should not be deemed a vexatious litigant. 9 B. An Adequate Record for Review 10 Plaintiff has filed numerous unsuccessful civil rights actions in this Court since 2019. 11 Plaintiff is expressly notified that the Court finds the following cases demonstrate a pattern of 12 frivolous and harassing filings by Plaintiff in this Court: 13 (1) Brigette Michelle Huit v. United States, et al., Case No. CV 19-3068-PA (JEM) (filed 14 4/19/19, dismissed 4/23/19). The Court found the Complaint, which was 180-pages long 15 including exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, and lacking an arguable 16 basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that Officer Frank Trevino and various unnamed 17 individuals engaged in a massive conspiracy, which included drugging, poisoning, constant 18 surveillance, and “illegal and unlawful implantation insertion and transplantation of unidentified 19 ‘man made’ foreign object to be called ‘nano bugs’ in to the scalps head and bodies” of 20 Plaintiff and her family members. The IFP request was denied and the case was dismissed 21 because the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 6.) 22 (2) Brigette Michelle Huit v. United States, et al., Case No. CV 19-4278-PA (JEM) (filed 23 5/16/19, dismissed 5/21/19). The Court found the Complaint, which was 144-pages long 24 including exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, and lacking an arguable 25 basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that she and/or her family members were the targets of a 26 massive conspiracy between a wide range of individuals, including Officer Frank Trevino, 27 various government officials, and various medical personnel. The Complaint included 28 allegations that Defendants’ engaged in various acts that caused harm to Plaintiff and/or her 4 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:36

1 family member, including: intercepting mail, destroying personal property, implanting foreign 2 objects into heads and bodies, constant surveillance, heavy metal poisoning, and employing 3 “sonic boom technology.” The IFP request was denied and the case was dismissed because 4 the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 7.) 5 (3) Brigette Michelle Huit v. Frank Trevino, et al., Case No. CV 19-6745-PA (JEM) (filed 6 8/2/19, dismissed 8/5/19). The Court found the Complaint, which was 89-pages long including 7 exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, and lacking an arguable basis in law 8 or fact. Plaintiff alleged that she and/or her family members were the targets of a massive 9 conspiracy between Sergeant Frank Trevino and other government officials and private 10 citizens. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were conducting 24-hour illegal surveillance, 11 poisoning Plaintiff and/or her family members, and were “positioning [] strangers in our rafter[s] 12 and contaminat[ing] all our foods and belongings.” The IFP request was denied and the case 13 was dismissed because the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 14 9.) 15 (4) Brigette Michelle Huit Brownbey v. Security Industry Specialist, Inc., et al., Case No. 16 CV 19-10029-PA (JEM) (filed 11/22/19, dismissed 11/26/19). The Court found the Complaint, 17 which was 144-pages long including exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, 18 and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that Frank Trevino “pursued and 19 stalked [her] morning noon and night while working his official hours of employment” for a 20 private company, the University of Southern California, the Department of Homeland Security, 21 “and Los Angeles street gangmembers all of whom were solicit[]ed by, conspired together, 22 jointly participated and engage[d] with Frank Trevino in this campaign of emotional and 23 psychological fear, distress and abuse against my family and myself.” Plaintiff further claimed 24 that she was under 24-hour physical surveillance, including by “two strange men inside [her] 25 living room wall,” and has been subjected to “beeps, humming and strange vibrations that 26 made [her] sick.” The IFP request was denied and the case was dismissed because the 27 claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 8.) 28 5 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:37

1 (5) Brigette Michelle Huit Brownbey v. Dep't of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. CV 2 20-0080-PA (JEM) (filed 1/3/20, dismissed 1/9/20). The Court found the Complaint, which 3 was 116-pages long including exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, and 4 lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that Sergeant Frank Trevino 5 “solicit[]ed and conspired with his present employers and Los Angeles street gangmembers” to 6 pursue and stalk Plaintiff “morning noon and night.” Plaintiff alleged that she was under 24- 7 hour physical surveillance, including by a “surveillance camera found in [her] home thermostat 8 with unknown men inside [her] walls,” and is being poisoned in followed. The IFP request was 9 denied and the case was dismissed because the claims were legally and/or factually patently 10 frivolous. (Dkt. No. 9.) 11 (6) Brigette Michelle Huit Brownbey v. Frank Trevino, et al., Case No. CV 21-5578-PA 12 (JEM) (filed 7/9/21, dismissed 7/13/21). The Court found the Complaint to be rambling, 13 confused, largely unintelligible, and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged 14 that Sergeant Frank Trevino interfered with her mail, poisoned her, and placed her under 24- 15 hour physical and electronic surveillance. The IFP request was denied and the case was 16 dismissed because the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 7.) 17 (7) Brigette Michelle Huit v. Frank Trevino, et al., Case No. CV 21-9358-PA (JEM) (filed 18 12/2/21, dismissed 12/8/21). The Court found the Complaint to be rambling, confused, largely 19 unintelligible, and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that Sergeant 20 Frank Trevino defamed her to “Los Angeles gangmembers” and others in her community, put 21 her under 24-hour surveillance, and subject her to “tracking, tampering, contaminants cyber 22 crimes breaking and entering.” Plaintiff also claimed that Trevino caused Plaintiff’s hair to fall 23 out, her dog’s death, and intercepted her civil filings. The IFP request was denied and the 24 case was dismissed because the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. 25 No. 13.) 26 (8) Brigette Michelle Huit v. Riquino Smith, Case No. CV 21-9359-PA (JEM) (filed 27 12/2/21, dismissed 12/3/21). The Court found the Complaint to be rambling, confused, largely 28 unintelligible, and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleged that Court 6 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:38

1 employee Riquino Smith tampered with her filings and conspired with Frank Trevino to cause 2 another of her complaints to be dismissed. The IFP request was denied and the case was 3 dismissed because the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 8.) 4 (9) Brigette Huit v. Frank Trevino, Case No. CV 21-9860-PA (JEM) (filed 12/22/21, 5 dismissed 1/3/22). The Court found the Complaint, which was 144-pages long including 6 exhibits, to be rambling, confused, largely unintelligible, and lacking an arguable basis in law 7 or fact. Plaintiff alleged that she and/or her family members were the targets of a massive 8 conspiracy by which they had foreign objects implanted into their heads and bodies, were 9 under constant illegal surveillance, were being poisoned by heavy metals, and “suffer[ed] from 10 sonic boom technology.” The IFP request was denied and the case was dismissed because 11 the claims were legally and/or factually patently frivolous. (Dkt. No. 7.) 12 C. Substantive Findings About the Frivolous or Harassing Nature of 13 Plaintiff's Litigation 14 Plaintiff's previous filings are both numerous and meritless. All of the cases listed 15 above were dismissed as legally and/or factually patently frivolous. The Complaints are 16 rambling, confusing, mostly unintelligible, and contain no credible claim for relief. Many are 17 also duplicative and repetitive, asserting numerous far-fetched and fanciful allegations against 18 Sergeant Frank Trevino and various other government and private individuals. Despite 19 numerous explanations, Plaintiff has continued to file civil rights actions against a limited set of 20 defendants raising the same or similar patently frivolous claims, knowing that the claims are 21 deficient. 22 These cases easily satisfy the “substantive considerations” identified by the Ninth 23 Circuit. They reflect a broad pattern of frivolous and/or harassing litigation that Plaintiff has 24 initiated in this Court. Plaintiff could not have had an “objective good faith expectation of 25 prevailing” as the Court has repeatedly explained to Plaintiff that these claims are meritless. 26 While Plaintiff’s pro se status is a mitigating factor in this analysis, it does not outweigh the 27 burden on the Court that addressing Plaintiff’s numerous meritless actions has involved. 28 7 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:39

1 Given this pattern, Plaintiff is likely to continue wasting the Court’s resources on patently 2 frivolous and harassing claims absent a vexatious litigant order. 3 Accordingly, the Court's substantive findings concerning Plaintiff's previous filings weigh 4 strongly in favor of limiting her ability to engage in future frivolous litigation. 5 D. A Narrowly Tailored Vexatious Litigant Order 6 A pre-filing injunction is appropriate where a plaintiff's complaints are not only 7 numerous, but also patently without merit. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 8 1990) (“[A pre-filing] injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The 9 plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.”). Plaintiff has 10 demonstrated a pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits against a variety of defendants. See De 11 Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. Thus, an order preventing Plaintiff from filing any future complaints 12 against any defendant, without court permission, is appropriate in this situation. 13 If Plaintiff is found to be a vexatious litigant, this Court will recommend that a pre-filing 14 order be issued requiring Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before filing any IFP application, 15 complaint, or petition. Plaintiff will have to submit a copy of the Court's vexatious litigant order 16 and a copy of the proposed filing with any motion seeking leave of court to file a new action or 17 any document in a case that is closed and final. 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 19 In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff Brigette Huit is ORDERED TO SHOW 20 CAUSE why she should not be deemed a vexatious litigant in light of her repeated filing of 21 frivolous actions. 22 If Plaintiff objects to being declared a vexatious litigant, she shall file a response to this 23 Order to Show Cause no later than February 21, 2022, and shall present any grounds she 24 may have to controvert the Court’s findings set forth above, including an explanation of why 25 the prior actions listed above are neither frivolous or harassing. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 8 Case 2:22-cv-00632-PA-JEM Document 9 Filed 02/07/22 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:40

1 Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to file a timely response to this Order will result 2 in a recommendation that she be declared a vexatious litigant. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Date: February 7, 2022 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9