Farson v. City of Lake Stevens

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DAVID MERRITT FARSON, CASE NO. 22-CV-00405-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING FILINGS AND 12 v. DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 13 CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff David Merritt Farson’s “2nd Writ of 17 Error Quae Corum Nobis Residant and Notice to Clerk”; “Memorandum of Law 18 Statutes/Codes/Regulations”; “Memorandum of Law the Rules of Common Law Courts”; 19 “Memorandum of the Law of the Case”; and “Writ Quo Warranto.” Dkt. Nos. 39–43. The “Writ 20 of Error” purports to rescind the Court’s February 27 and March 3, 2023 Orders and commands 21 the Clerk of Court to “take notice” of several laws. See Dkt. No. 39 at 8–11. It also appears to 22 advance several jurisdictional arguments that the Court has now repeatedly rejected, or to 23 otherwise assert that the Court’s previous orders are void. See id. at 2–8. The remainder of Mr. 24 Farson’s filings likewise challenge the Court’s jurisdiction or assert sovereign citizen theories. As 1 recently explained, “[c]ourts have uniformly rejected arguments based on sovereign citizen 2 theories.” Reum v. Washington, No. 3:23-CV-05074-DGE, 2023 WL 1766376, at *2 (W.D. Wash. 3 Feb. 3, 2023) (collecting cases). 4 The Court therefore STRIKES Mr. Farson’s latest spate of “Attornatus Privatus”

5 submissions as meritless and vexatious. Dkt. Nos. 39–43; see, e.g., Benson v. Nevada, No. 2:17- 6 CV-00447-RFB-NJK, 2017 WL 4776760, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2017).1 The Court previously 7 warned Mr. Farson that such behavior would result in sanctions “in accordance with applicable 8 law, including but not limited to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil 9 Rule 11.” Dkt. No. 37 at 2. Mr. Farson is therefore directed to show cause, within 14 days, why he 10 should not be sanctioned under those rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). Should Mr. Farson (1) fail 11 to timely respond or (2) respond by filing additional documents or motions related to his sovereign 12 citizenship (including but not limited to the filings stricken in this Order), the Court will dismiss 13 this case with prejudice. 14 Dated this 27th day of March, 2023.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 Mr. Farson may not seek a writ of quo warranto, as the writ may be sought only by the United States—not a private 24 individual. See Allah v. Robinson, No. C07-697-MJP, 2007 WL 2220258, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2007).