John William Wallace v. Close Legal Description

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 John William Wallace, Case No. 2:25-cv-01648-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations and 6 v. Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

7 Close Legal Description, [ECF Nos. 5, 8] 8 Defendant

9 10 Plaintiff John William Wallace commenced this action against defendant Close Legal 11 Description. ECF No. 1-1. United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe reviewed the 12 “complaint” and found it “incompressible and so lacking as to be frivolous and delusional.” 13 R&R, ECF No. 5 at 2. Judge Koppe therefore issued a report recommending dismissal of this 14 action with prejudice.1 Id. Judge Koppe also recommends that I declare Wallace a vexatious 15 litigant and issue a prefiling injunction barring him from initiating future actions. R&R, ECF 16 No. 8 at 5. Wallace had until September 18, 2025, and until October 13, 2025, respectively, to 17 file any objections to the magistrate judge’s R&Rs. ECF No. 5 at 2; ECF No. 8 at 5 (citing Local 18 Rule IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to the findings and recommendations 19 must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 20 (same). Those deadlines passed without Wallace filing objections or otherwise responding in 21 any way. 22

24 1 This case was previously assigned to the magistrate judge consent program. ECF No. 2. The defendant has not appeared in this case and thus has not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. 25 Because all defendants, even unserved defendants, must consent before a magistrate judge can issue dispositive orders, this case was assigned to a district judge, and therefore the magistrate judge 26 recommends dismissal instead. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1005 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all parties for jurisdiction to vest in the magistrate judge). 1 I. Discussion 2 A. Dismissal with prejudice (R&R, ECF No. 5) 3 The law is clear that “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 4 recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 5 Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 6 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Although de novo review of the R&R is not required, I nonetheless 7 made an independent review here. Judge Koppe sua sponte recommends dismissal of this action 8 because Wallace brings this case based on pages of addresses and does not provide any factual 9 allegations or otherwise attempt to state a claim. ECF No. 5 at 2. I agree that sua sponte 10 dismissal is appropriate here. A review of Wallace’s initiating document reveals that it contains 11 nothing more than nine pages of addresses described as “Close Legal Description.” See ECF No. 12 1-1. Wallace’s “complaint” simply makes no sense, fails to identify a cogent cause of action, and 13 is unconnected to the District of Nevada. This litigation is clearly delusional and frivolous, so 14 dismissal is appropriate. 15 B. Vexatious litigant (R&R, ECF No. 8) 16 In the same vein, Judge Koppe’s recommendation that Wallace be deemed a vexatious 17 litigant is supported by the record. Federal district courts enjoy inherent authority to issue 18 writs—including prefiling orders—to prevent vexatious litigants from filing frivolous lawsuits 19 and abusing the judicial process. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 20 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated 21 because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to 22 consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th 23 Cir. 1990). Before entering a pre-filing order, the district court must provide notice and an 24 opportunity to be heard to the party against whom the order is sought. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. 25 If the court imposes a pre-filing order, it must set forth which cases and motions support its 26 conclusion that the party’s filings are so numerous or abusive that the party should be enjoined, 1 “make substantive findings” as to the “frivolous or harassing nature” of the litigant’s actions, 2 and narrowly tailor the order to “fit the specific vice encountered.” Id. (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d 3 at 1148). 4 5 A district court may satisfy “the requirement of providing an opportunity to be heard by 6 written submission rather than an oral or evidentiary hearing.” Windsor v. Boushie, 677 F. App’x 7 311, 312 (9th Cir. 2017). Under Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, a litigant must be 8 provided notice and an opportunity to oppose any restrictions before their imposition. 761 F.3d 9 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). On September 4, 2025, Judge Koppe ordered Wallace to show cause 10 as to why he should not be deemed vexatious. ECF No. 7. However, it is unclear whether 11 Wallace received the show-cause order. It is also unclear whether Wallace receives any of the 12 court’s mail. He provides his address, in this case, as “General Delivery, Kennewick, WA 13 99336.” Aside from an address to a Washington jail and state hospital, each of Wallace’s other 14 cases include similarly unreliable addresses such as “general delivery” in San Francisco, CA; 15 Reno, NV; Fairfield, CA; and Davis, CA. Consequently, almost all of Wallace’s mail, in this case 16 and the others, is returned as undeliverable. No address update is ever provided. If the address 17 used by the court is deficient, that deficiency is attributed to Wallace and affords him no 18 excuse for failing to respond to the show-cause order. I therefore conclude that the court has 19 not deprived Wallace of notice and an opportunity to be heard. 20 21 Wallace has initiated thirteen pro se lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District 22 of Nevada between 2011 and 2025. However, “[a]n injunction cannot issue merely upon a 23 showing of litigiousness.” Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990). Although 24 Wallace has not filed an extraordinary number of lawsuits, each are patently without merit. A 25 review of the initiating documents indicates that Wallace files frivolous, delusional, and 26 meritless matters against entities, persons, or both, which do not contain any factual 1 allegations whatsoever. To ensure the creation of an adequate record, I also list and incorporate 2 by reference the cases compiled in Judge Koppe’s R&R, into this order. 3 4 The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Second Circuit’s five-factor framework to determine 5 “whether a party is a vexatious litigant and whether a pre-filing order will stop the vexatious 6 litigation.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)). 7 Such factors include “(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed 8 vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, 9 e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the 10 litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other 11 parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether 12 other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Safir, 792 F.2d at 13 24. 14 15 The R&R identifies twelve additional lawsuits filed by Wallace in the U.S. District 16 Court for the District of Nevada. ECF No. 8 at 3–4. Although many were dismissed for 17 Wallace’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, my 18 independent review shows all of Wallace’s initiating documents contain no factual allegations. 19 Rather, they are an incomprehensible litany of repetitive words, entities, or addresses. Thus, 20 although the number of filings do not establish Wallace as vexatious per se, the patently 21 meritless nature of his filings does. The content of Wallace’s filings suggests that he does not 22 have a good faith basis for bringing the cases and demonstrates a pattern of vexatiousness. 23 • Wallace v. State of Cal., Case No. 3:11-cv-00278-RCJ-VPC. Wallace commenced 24 this action by filing two pages, which repeated the following lines: “All 25 Investments in Manitoba of Employees of Washington;” the words “Beef; 26 Cattle; Pork; Hogs; Wheat; Corn; Oats; Rye; Beans; Onions; Potatoes; Cotton; 1 Wool; Chicken; Machinery; Iron Ore; Steel;” “All Investments in Apple of 2 Employees of Washington D.C.;” and “All Investments in Private of Employees 3 of Washington D.C.”). ECF No. 1. The magistrate judge ordered Wallace to 4 complete an in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 3. Wallace did not. Instead, 5 he filed two more incomprehensible, handwritten documents that contained 6 no factual allegations. ECF Nos. 4, 5. The case was dismissed for Wallace’s 7 failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 8 ECF No. 7. The dismissal order was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 8. 9 • Wallace v. State of Ore., Case No. 3:11-cv-00808-RCJ-VPC. Wallace filed two 10 identical pages consisting of, among other things, the word “oil” repeated 11 approximately 250 times; the terms “Investments in Exxon Mobil; Medicare; 12 Oil, Policeman, of Employees of Washington D.C.,” and “Investments in Private; 13 Public; Exxon Mobil; Oil, Diesel; of Employees of Washington, D.C.;” and a list 14 of dams, followed by a third page repeating “All Investment in Exxon Mobil; $, 15 Dollar; Oil; of Employees of Washington D.C.” ECF No. 1. The magistrate judge 16 ordered Wallace to pay the filing fee or to complete an in forma pauperis 17 application (ECF No. 3), however, the Postal Service returned the order as 18 undeliverable (ECF No. 4). All of the court’s mail was returned as 19 undeliverable. ECF Nos. 6, 8. The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to 20 submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis or a properly styled complaint. ECF 21 No. 7. 22 • Wallace v. Federal Agent, Case No. 3:12-cv-00223-LRH-VPC. Wallace filed fifteen 23 handwritten pages. ECF No. 1. This case follows a similar pattern to the prior 24 cases filed by Wallace, where there are lines of repeated words. For instance, 25 two pages mainly repeat the word “bankrupt,” one page repeats “felony,” and 26 approximately five pages repeat “oil.” Id. The remaining pages feature repeated 1 lines of “John Day Dam,” “Gorge Dam,” “Manitoba,” “lumber,” and “sow.” Id. 2 Wallace later filed nine pages, two of repeated the words “beef” and “section.” 3 Page three mainly repeats “McNary Dam; Shred; Section; Close Legal 4 Description;” page four repeats things like “oil,” “diesel,” “gasoline,” “gas,” “arsin 5 (A3H3),” and “grain;” page five repeats “grapefruit,” followed by a page of “flax” 6 then “Bonneville Dam;” page eight again repeats “oil;” and page nine is almost 7 completely “squash.” Wallace’s two additional documents repeat random 8 words such as “oil,” “pound,” “bean,” “hop,” “section,” “seed,” “sugar beet,” 9 “cancer,” and “coal.” The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to pay the 10 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. 11 • Wallace v. Nye County Jail, Case No. 3:12-cv-00362-LRH-VPC. Wallace filed five 12 pages consisting of one page of “oil,” a second repeating “bail,” then “policeman” 13 and “Investment in Policeman; Policeman; Policeman; of Employees of 14 Washington D.C.,” and finally a page dedicated to “corn.” ECF No. 1. The court 15 determined that Wallace’s allegations lacked an arguable basis in fact and law, 16 and the repetition of words factually fanciful and delusional. The case was 17 dismissed as frivolous. ECF No. 4. After dismissal, Wallace filed a seventeen- 18 page handwritten document repeating words like “potatoe” (sic), “cotton,” 19 “policeman,” “oil,” “corn,” “frivolous,” and “township.” ECF No. 5. 20 • Wallace v. State of Cal., Case No. 3:13-cv-00174-RCJ-WGC. Wallace filed four 21 pages repeating: “Investment Charter One Financial of Employees of 22 Washington, D.C.;” almost one full page of the word “PEA;” another page 23 dedicated to “Investment in Andy Miller; Andy Miller; Andy Miller; of 24 Employees of Washington D.C.” and the last page mainly repeating the word 25 “oil.” ECF No. 1. Wallace also filed five additional handwritten documents 26 repeating random words such as “Investment Proctor Gamble Co.; Quaker Oats 1 Co. of Employees of Washington D.C.,” “Investment of Pilgrim’s Price Corp; 2 Ricetec Inc. of Employees of Washington D.C.” and “charge: trespass” listing 3 various entities and addresses. The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to 4 pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 5 • Wallace v. Veterans Affairs, Case No. 3:15-cv-00161-MMD-VPC. Wallace initiated 6 this action by filing five pages consisting of the words “charge: trespass” 7 followed by various business entities and addresses only. ECF No. 1. He went 8 on to file two similar incomprehensible documents. See ECF Nos. 3, 4. The case 9 was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to 10 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. The court’s dismissal order was returned as 11 undeliverable. ECF No. 8. 12 • Wallace v. Veterans Affairs, Case No. 3:15-cv-00302-RCJ-VPC. Here, Wallace filed 13 five handwritten documents repeating the words “charge: trespass” followed by 14 various business entities and addresses only, and “one thousand pound 15 gunpowder” and “one thousand pound ammunition.” ECF No. 1. The pages are 16 mostly illegible and written over top of forms. The case was dismissed for 17 Wallace’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. ECF No. 10. The court’s dismissal order was returned as undeliverable. 19 ECF No. 11. 20 • Wallace v. Unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-00162-RFB-EJY. Wallace commenced this 21 action by filing three pages listing “Close Legal Description” and various 22 addresses in California, Arizona, Michigan, the District of Columbia, and 23 Nevada. ECF No. 1. The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to pay the 24 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. The 25 court’s dismissal order was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. 26 1 • Wallace v. Unknown, Case No, 2:24-cv-00425-ART-BNW. Here, Wallace started 2 this suit by filing three pages listing “Close Legal Description” and different 3 addresses in California, Oregon, Iowa, Illinois, and Nevada. ECF No. 1. The 4 magistrate judge ordered Wallace to pay the filing fee or to complete an in forma 5 pauperis application. ECF No. 3. Wallace did not. Instead, Wallace filed another 6 four-page document consisting solely of “Close Legal Description” addresses. 7 The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an 8 application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. After dismissal, Wallace 9 filed another four-page document dedicated to “Close Legal Description” 10 addresses. ECF No. 6. 11 • Wallace v. Close Legal Description, Case No. 2:24-cv-01716-CDS-BNW. Wallace 12 started this case by filing four pages of “Close Legal Description” with various 13 addresses in California and Washington. ECF No. 1. The magistrate judge 14 ordered Wallace to pay the filing fee or to complete an in forma pauperis 15 application. ECF No. 2. The court’s order was returned as undeliverable, so 16 Wallace was ordered to update his address. ECF No. 3. Wallace failed to pay 17 the filing fee, complete an in forma pauperis application, or update his address as 18 ordered. He instead filed another ten-page document listing “Close Legal 19 Description” and various addresses in Washington and California addresses. 20 The case was dismissed for Wallace’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and failure to update address. ECF 22 No. 7. 23 • Wallace v. Close Legal Description, Case No. 2:24-cv-02108-JAD-DJA. Wallace 24 commenced this suit with four pages of “Close Legal Description” and various 25 addresses in Oregon. ECF No. 1. Wallace filed the same ten-page document 26 listing “Close Legal Description” and various addresses in Washington and 1 California. ECF No. 5. The magistrate judge ordered Wallace to pay the filing 2 fee or to complete an in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 6. The court’s order 3 was returned as undeliverable, so Wallace was ordered to update his address. 4 ECF No. 8. Wallace failed to pay the filing fee, complete an in forma pauperis 5 application, or update his address so the magistrate judge issued an order to 6 show cause. ECF No. 9. That order was not returned, but Wallace failed to 7 respond to the show-cause order. He instead filed another fifteen-page 8 document listing “Close Legal Description” and various addresses in Colorado, 9 California, and Washington. ECF No. 10. The court’s mail was again returned as 10 undeliverable. See ECF Nos. 15–17. 11 • Wallace v. Close Legal Description, Case No. 2:25-cv-01224-MDC. Wallace filed five 12 pages of “Close Legal Description” with various addresses in California. ECF 13 No. 1. Wallace failed to pay the filing fee or to complete an in forma pauperis 14 application. The court’s mail was returned as undeliverable. See ECF Nos. 6–7. 15 This case is part of the consent program and is therefore pending review by the 16 magistrate judge. 17 • Wallace v. Close Legal Description, Case No. 2:25-cv-01648-CDS-NJK. The instant 18 case began by Wallace filing nine pages of “Close Legal Description” and 19 various addresses in Oregon and Washington without paying the filing fee or 20 completing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF No. 1. The 21 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that the case be dismissed with 22 prejudice, and other court mail, was returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 8–11. 23 24 As to the second Safir factor, Wallace’s motives in initiating these lawsuits are unclear. 25 Given the incomprehensibility of the pleadings, which lack any discernable claims, Wallace 26 does not have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. As 1 outlined in the R&R, this is one of many similar cases that Wallace has initiated with no 2 comprehensible complaint. ECF No. 8 at 4. He initiates these cases without submitting an 3 application to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the filing fee. Nonetheless, his litigation 4 history shows he could not reasonably expect to prevail given his documents contain no 5 allegations. Accordingly, this factor supports a determination that Wallace is a vexatious 6 litigant. 7 8 Wallace is a pro se litigant in this case, and in the twelve other cases he has initiated 9 in this district. Generally, courts are protective of pro se litigants’ fundamental right to access 10 the court. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147 (“[W]e also recognize that such pre-filing orders should 11 rarely be filed.”). However, I find that this factor does not outweigh Wallace’s frivolous and 12 abusive filings. A court is not to sit idly by in the face of a litigant who exhibits a pattern of 13 abusive or frivolous litigation. Reddy v. MedQuist, Inc., 2012 WL 6020010, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 14 2012) (“[C]ourts are entitled to enjoin pro se litigants with ‘abusive and lengthy’ litigation 15 histories.” (citing De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147)). 16 17 As to the fourth factor, Wallace has indeed placed a needless burden on the court, the 18 judges, and the staff by filing meritless cases that he never intends to prosecute. Each 19 incomprehensible “complaint” is comprised solely of a series of random and repetitive words 20 and nothing more.2 Needless to say, this is a flagrant abuse3 of the judicial system because it 21 consumes the court’s time and resources. This unnecessary burden supports a finding of 22 vexatiousness and harassment. 23 24 2 I also note that Wallace’s documents are handwritten and lack structure or the use of margins or 25 spaces. 3 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt 26 the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. 1 2 This factor is whether sanctions, other than a pre-filing order, could adequately 3 protect the court and other parties. Wallace’s continuous and repetitive lawsuits—and 4 continuous and repetitive filings—demonstrate that lesser sanctions would not be adequate, 5 especially given that Wallace initiates these lawsuits but does not participate in the process. I 6 find that less restrictive options would not provide an adequate deterrence in this case. 7 Wallace’s litigation history and lack of participation suggests that monetary sanctions are an 8 inadequate deterrence. Wallace has filed incomprehensible documents in the District of 9 Nevada as early as 2011 and as recently as September 2025. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that 10 vexatious litigant orders “must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the [vexatious] 11 conduct.” Molski at 1065 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4)). 12 13 The final factor requires the pre-filing order to be narrowly tailored to the vexatious 14 litigant’s wrongful behavior. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. “Narrowly tailored orders are needed ‘to 15 prevent infringement of the litigator’s right of access to the courts.’” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 16 (citing Sires v. Gabriel, 748 F.2d 49, 51 (1st Cir. 1984)). In Molski, the Ninth Circuit approved the 17 scope of a vexatious litigant order because it prevented the plaintiff from filing “only the type of 18 claims [he] had been filing vexatiously,” and “because it will not deny [him] access to courts on 19 any . . . claim that is not frivolous.” 500 F.3d at 1061. This order does not prevent Wallace from 20 pursuing any legitimate nonfrivolous claims; rather, it is limited to indecipherable and 21 delusional lawsuits that do not contain any discernible factual allegations. In addition, the 22 requirement of pre-filing approval is limited to cases that Wallace files pro se; it does not apply 23 to cases filed by counsel. Wallace may proceed with an action either by paying the filing the fee 24 or appearing with the representation of counsel. This restriction would still permit Wallace to 25 have access to the court, but it should halt his vexatious litigation. 26 1 Having thoroughly reviewed the findings in the R&R, the circumstances of this case, 2 and the numerous others that Wallace has filed in this district, I find that he has abused the 3 judicial process in a fashion that warrants the extreme remedy of a pre-filing order prohibiting 4 him from filing any further pro se “complaints” that do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 8 (which requires that pleadings clearly and concisely set forth factual allegations 6 sufficient to provide a defendant with notice, on which theory, and what relief is being sought 7 against them). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 8 II. Conclusion 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s reports and 10 recommendations [ECF Nos. 5, 8] are accepted and adopted in full. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John William Wallace is declared a vexatious litigant 12 and is therefore prohibited under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) from initiating any lawsuit as a pro se 13 litigant, either alone or with other plaintiffs, in the United States District Court for the District 14 of Nevada that is indecipherable, frivolous, or delusional and that does not contain discernible 15 factual allegations. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Wallace intends to file any papers with this district 17 that are not frivolous or delusional and do set forth cogent factual allegations, he must pay the 18 filing fee in full or he must first obtain permission from the chief judge of this court by 19 complying with the following instructions: 20 1. Wallace must apply to the Chief Judge of this District for leave to file the 21 initiating documents by submitting to the clerk’s office an application 22 bearing the title “Application to Chief District Judge Seeking Leave to 23 File”, which must be supported by a declaration from Wallace, made 24 under penalty of perjury, stating that (1) the matters asserted in the new 25 complaint or papers have never been raised and disposed of on their 26 merits by any court; (2) the claim or claims are not frivolous or made in 1 bad faith; and (3) he has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts 2 and such investigation supports the claim or claims; and 3 2. Wallace must attach a copy of this order to any such application. 4 Failure to comply with these instructions constitutes sufficient grounds for denial of 5]| Wallace’s application. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject, refuse to 7|| file, and discard any new litigation-initiating documents submitted pro se by Wallace that do not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. This order does not apply to any suit in which a licensed attorney represents Wallace, he pays the filing fee in full, he obtains permission of the chief judge, or any action in which Wallace appears as a criminal 11}| defendant, 12 This order will remain in effect until further notice by this court. Wallace’s “complaint” 13]| is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to close this case. 14 Dated: October 28, 2025 J, / 15 . LZ 16 Uni tates District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26