Gwendolyn Hall v. California Victim of Crime Compensation Board

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04652
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GWENDOLYN HALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-04652-JWH-AGR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v.

14 CALIFORNIA VICTIM OF CRIME COMPENSATION BOARD, 15 THE PASADENA FIRE CHIEF CHAD AUGUSTIN, 16 LINDSEY REED DIRECTOR OF THE WOMAN ROOM, 17 SANTA CATALINA BRANCH LIBRARY, 18 HASTING RANCH BRANCH LIBRARY, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Hall filed a Complaint, thereby 2 commencing this case, as well as a Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (the 3 “IFP Request”).1 The Complaint is the latest of more than 30 actions that Hall 4 has filed in the federal courts, mainly the United States District Court for the 5 Central District of California, that are frivolous and duplicative. Accordingly, 6 the Court finds it appropriate to warn Hall that she may be designated as a 7 vexatious litigant. This Order places Hall on notice that this Court is 8 considering issuing a vexatious litigant order that will impose pre-filing 9 conditions upon her before she may file another Complaint, IFP Request, or 10 document in a case that is closed. If Hall opposes the designation, then she must 11 file a written response to this Order no later than July 19, 2024. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “Federal courts can ‘regulate the activities of abusive litigants by 14 imposing carefully tailored restrictions under . . . appropriate circumstances.’” 15 Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 (quoting De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation 17 marks omitted)). In the Central District of California, the Court may, “[o]n its 18 own motion,” initiate a vexatious litigant order at “any time,” which eventually 19 may result in “a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filing from the 20 litigant . . . without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a 21 Magistrate Judge[.]” L.R. 83-8.2. 22 “When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they must: 23 (1) give litigants notice and ‘an opportunity to oppose the order before it [is] 24 entered’; (2) compile an adequate record for appellate review, including ‘a 25 listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a 26

27 1 Complaint [ECF No. 1]; Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF 1 vexatious litigant order was needed’; (3) make substantive findings of 2 frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as ‘to closely fit 3 the specific vice encountered.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (quoting 4 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48). 5 “The first and second of these requirements are procedural, while the 6 ‘latter two factors . . . are substantive considerations . . . [that] help the district 7 court define who is, in fact, a “vexatious litigant” and construct a remedy that 8 will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the litigant’s 9 right to access the courts.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063 (quoting Molski 10 v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007)). 11 II. ANALYSIS 12 A. Notice and Opportunity to Oppose the Order 13 This order serves as notice to Hall that she has until July 19, 2024, to file a 14 written opposition to her designation as a vexatious litigant. See Ringgold- 15 Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063 (tentative ruling declaring plaintiffs as vexatious 16 litigants and the provision of two weeks to oppose it were sufficient to provide 17 notice and an opportunity to be heard). This matter will be decided without oral 18 argument. See Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 19 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n opportunity to be heard does not require an 20 oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue.”). 21 B. Compilation of an Adequate Record for Review 22 “An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases 23 and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order 24 was needed.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. The record may include cases filed in 25 other judicial districts. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064 (district court 26 properly considered the litigants’ history of state court litigation). 27 In its compilation of the record, the Court lists the following cases: 1 (1) Hall v. Gordo, Case No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. 2 Oct. 27, 2023); 3 (2) Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. 4 Jan. 2, 2024); 5 (3) Hall v. Lara, Case No. 2:24-cv-00123-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal. 6 Mar. 22, 2024); 7 (4) Hall v. Pasadena Fire Department, Case 8 No.2:24-cv-00200-JLS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2024); 9 (5) Hall v. Pasadena Police Department, Case 10 No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024); 11 (6) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 12 2024); 13 (7) Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:24-cv-00729-AB-MAR (C.D. Cal. 14 Jan. 31, 2024); 15 (8) Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case 16 No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024); 17 (9) Hall v. Lansing, Case No. 2:24-cv-00935-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. 18 Feb. 15, 2024); 19 (10) Hall v. Pasadena Department of Motor Vehicles, Case 20 No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024); 21 (11) Hall v. California State University, Los Angeles, Case 22 No. 2:24-cv-02043-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2024); 23 (12) Hall v. Bonta, Case No. 2:24-cv-02044-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. 24 Mar. 20, 2024); 25 (13) Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case 26 No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024); 27 (14) Hall v. Los Angeles Sheriff Department, Case 1 (15) Hall v. California State Board of Pharmacy, Case 2 No. 2:24-cv-02986-CBM-MRW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2024); 3 (16) Hall v. Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Executive Officers, Case 4 No. 2:24-cv-03357-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2024); 5 (17) Hall v. Jomsky, Case No. 2:24-cv-03456-MWF-AJR (C.D. Cal. 6 May 30, 2024); 7 (18) Hall v. California Department of Rehabilitation, Case 8 No. 2:24-cv-03498-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2024); 9 (19) Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D. Cal. 10 May 7, 2024); 11 (20) Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. 12 Cal. May 10, 2024); 13 (21) Hall v. Department of the Treasury, Case 14 No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024); 15 (22) Hall v. Biden, Case No. 2:24-cv-4057-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal. 16 May 23, 2024); 17 (23) Hall v. Estrada, Case No. 2:24-cv-04332-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal. 18 June 5, 2024); 19 (24) Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal. 20 May 30, 2024); 21 (25) Hall v. Kinsey, Case No. 17-55345 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017); 22 (26) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 23-cv-1909-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 23 (27) Hall v. U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Case No. 23-cv-2189-CRC 24 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 25 (28) Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 23-cv-2285-CRC 26 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 27 (29) Hall v. U.S. Department of Justice, Case No. 23-cv-2286-CRC 1 (30) Hall v. Department of Education, Case No. 23-cv-2287-CRC 2 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 3 (31) Hall v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Case 4 No. 23-cv-2288-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 5 (32) Hall v. Harris, Case No. 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 6 (33) Hall v. Biden, Case No. 23-cv-2290-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 7 (34) Hall v. Newsom, Case No. 23-cv-2122-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2023); 8 and 9 (35) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 23-cv-1908-CRC (D.D.C. July 7, 2023). 10 Those cases—all of which were dismissed as frivolous—lead the Court to 11 conclude that a vexatious litigant order is needed. 12 C. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment 13 “[I]t is incumbent on the court to make ‘substantive findings as to the 14 frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 15 F.3d at 1064 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148). To qualify as frivolous, 16 “‘[t]he plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently 17 without merit.’” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (quoting Moy v. United States, 906 18 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990)). In the alternative, to qualify as harassment, “the 19 filing of several similar types of actions [must] constitute[] an intent to harass 20 the defendant or the court.’” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n.3 (quoting In re 21 Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Here, the Court finds that Hall’s 22 cases fall under both categories. 23 1. Frivolousness 24 Hall’s actions are numerous and patently without merit. In the instant 25 action, which is duplicative of several prior actions, Hall alleged the following: 26 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) has been victimizing her for 27 years and has forced her into human trafficking and homelessness. The FBI 1 used government phones in Hall’s name, controlled her computer, and put 2 chemicals in her food and hair products. The FBI allowed a woman to assume 3 Hall’s identity. The woman put her name on Hall’s dental and optometry 4 records and took over Hall’s bank account in order to launder money. The Vice 5 President of the United States had a court clerk falsify a federal judge’s initials 6 on court records. The Vice President filed a civil rights case in Hall’s name. An 7 agent stole Hall’s mail and public benefits. A firefighter took over Hall’s 8 apartment.2 9 Those allegations repeat Hall's assertions from several prior actions in 10 which she made fanciful and baseless allegations of a broad conspiracy, whose 11 participants included officials at the highest levels of government, to steal her 12 identity and to ruin her life. 13 For example, Hall has alleged repeatedly that the Vice President of the 14 United States tried to kill her, steal her identity, and frame her on criminal 15 charges. See Hall v. Harris, Case No. 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); 16 Hall v. Estrada, Case No. 2:24-cv-04332-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2024); 17 Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal. May 30, 18 2024); Hall v. Biden, Case No. 2:24-cv-4057-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 23, 19 2024). 20 Hall has alleged repeatedly that federal agents and others have been 21 secretly entering her apartment to switch her vitamins, poison her food, and 22 tamper with her personal care products. See Hall v. Gordo, Case 23 No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Harris, 24 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case 25 No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2024); Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, 26 Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024); Hall v. Lara, 27 1 Case No. 2:24-cv-00123-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2024); Hall v. Wray, 2 Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez, 3 Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). Hall once alleged 4 that FBI agents poured chemicals in the tubes supplying her drinking water. See 5 Hall v. Pasadena Police Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR 6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024). 7 Hall has alleged repeatedly that a woman, often with the help of 8 government officials, used Hall’s medical insurance to have a baby or to receive 9 medical care. See Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. 10 Cal. May 30, 2024); Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case 11 No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024); Hall v. Bonta, Case 12 No. 2:24-cv-02044-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2024); Hall v. Social Security 13 Administration, Case No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024). 14 Hall once alleged that a defendant tampered with a baby’s blood to look like 15 Hall’s blood. See Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR 16 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024). 17 Hall has alleged repeatedly that she lost public benefits because of 18 conspiracies against her by several entities and individuals, including 19 government agencies and officials. See Hall v. Gordo, Case 20 No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Biden, Case 21 No. 23-cv-2290-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); Hall v. Department of the 22 Treasury, Case No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024); Hall v. 23 Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 24 2024); Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D. Cal. May 7, 25 2024); Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC 26 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024). 27 Hall has alleged repeatedly that public officials, often with the cooperation 1 enrich themselves. See Hall v. Gordo, Case No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. 2 Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D. 3 Cal. May 7, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. 4 Cal. Jan. 2, 2024); Hall v. Department of the Treasury, Case 5 No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024); Hall v. Los Angeles 6 Board of Supervisors Executive Officers, Case No. 2:24-cv-03357-JWH-AGR (C.D. 7 Cal. Apr. 29, 2024); Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case 8 No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena Police 9 Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024); Hall 10 v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 11 2024). 12 Those cases show that Hall has had, in a short period, 35 actions 13 dismissed because they were frivolous. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of 14 Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1523, 1526 (9th Cir.1983) (35 prior actions 15 qualified as sufficiently inordinate). Hall’s claims are sufficiently numerous and 16 patently without merit to qualify for a substantive finding of frivolousness. 17 2. Harassment 18 Although it is unnecessary to make an alternative finding of harassment, 19 the Court nonetheless finds that Hall has filed several similar types of actions 20 that permit a reasonable inference of an intent to harass the Court. In the cases 21 described above, Hall has continued to press her allegations after being warned 22 repeatedly that they are frivolous. Hall’s insistence on continuing to file suits 23 raising the same allegations, while knowing the Court will dismiss them as 24 frivolous, evinces an intent to harass the Court. 25 As an additional example, in the order of dismissal for Hall v. Rodriguez, 26 Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024), the Court 27 informed Hall that she had no private right of action in federal court for identity 1 Complaints in which the core allegations involved identity theft. See Hall v. 2 Pasadena Police Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. 3 Jan. 22, 2024); Hall v. Wray, Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal. 4 Jan. 20, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:24-cv-00729-AB-MAR (C.D. Cal. 5 Jan. 31, 2024); Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case 6 No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024); Hall v. Lansing, Case 7 No. 2:24-cv-00935-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena 8 Department of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. 9 Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena Department of Motor Vehicles, Case 10 No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. California 11 Department of Rehabilitation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03498-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal. 12 May 15, 2024). 13 Those cases show that Hall has a litigation history of filing several similar 14 types of actions with the knowledge that the Court will summarily reject them, 15 thereby raising a reasonable inference of an intent to harass the Court. See De 16 Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n.3. That history qualifies Hall’s litigation behavior for a 17 substantive finding of harassment. 18 D. Narrow Tailoring of the Order 19 “Finally, pre-filing orders ‘must be narrowly tailored to the vexatious 20 litigant’s wrongful behavior.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1066 (quoting 21 Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061). It should “cover[] only the type of claims [the 22 litigant] had been filing vexatiously[.]” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. 23 Here, if Hall is designated as a vexatious litigant, then the pre-filing order 24 will provide that the Court will not accept any filings from her that are 25 duplicative or frivolous, as her litigation history reflects. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 26 761 F.3d at 1066 (noting that an order that would prevent filings that are “not 27 duplicative, and not frivolous” would be sufficiently narrowly tailored). Filings 1|| the pre-filing order “will not deny [Hall] access to courts on any . . . claim that is 2|| not frivolous.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. 3 III. DISPOSITION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 5 1. Hall is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not 6|| designate her a vexatious litigant in light of her litigation history. 7 2. Hall objects to the issuance of an order designating her a || vexatious litigant, then she is DIRECTED to file a written response to this 9|| Order to Show Cause no later than July 19, 2024. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:___July 1, 2024 UL SN ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28