Jones v. Kenzo
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01208-JHC
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR ORDER AGAINST VEXATIOUS v. LITIGANT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM KENZO,
Defendant.
I INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. It has come to the Court’s attention that pro se Plaintiff Cortez Jones has recently filed 57 civil lawsuits in the Western District of Washington, including the present action. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff Jones to show cause within 21 days why it should not enter a vexatious litigant and standing bar order against him as described below.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR II Below is a list of the cases Jones recently filed in this District, as of the drafting of this
order: 1. Jones v. General Services Administration, Case No. 23-1148-JCC: Jones alleges that the General Administration Services discriminated against him and failed to return his property, causing him $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 25, 2023, Judge Coughenour adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 8.
2. Jones v. Fidelity Investments, Case No. 23-1149-LK: Jones alleges that Fidelity Investments deprived him of access to his funds, resulting in more than $12 billion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, Judge King deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation in light of Jones’s amended IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 3. Jones v. King County Sheriff et al., Case No. 23-1150-JNW: Jones alleges that the King
County Courthouse, King County Judges, “the residence at Rainier Square,” the City of NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Seattle, Bruce Harrell, and Fidelity Investments discriminated against him and stole multiple business and corporations from him. He alleges $964,000,000,000,000.00 in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form
that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. The IFP application is currently pending. 4. Jones v. United States Postal Service et al., Case No. 23-1151-RAJ: Jones alleges that “stolen property” led to injuries and hardship regarding his work life, resulting in $500 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023,
United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 5. Jones v. King County Courthouse, Case No. 23-1152-LK: Jones alleges that King County Courthouse stole property from him, resulting in more than $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 21, 2023, Judge King
deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation in light of Jones’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR amended IFP application in another case, where he indicated that he could not afford to pay the filing fee. Dkt. # 7. 6. Jones v. Harrell et al., Case No 23-1153-RSM: Jones alleges that the City of Seattle, its
police, and its mayor stole his identity and property, resulting in $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 8. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 10.
7. Jones v. University of Washington Medicine, Case No. 23-1154-TL: Jones alleges that University of Washington doctors committed medical malpractice leading to the wrongful death of Patricia Paramore. He seeks “twenty trillion eight hundred million” dollars in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 11. 8. Jones v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Case No. 23-1162-RSM: Jones alleges that
the Drug Enforcement Administration stole his identity and paid for murder, with references to freemasonry and the Italian mafia, resulting in over $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he had received at least $324,000 in the past twelve months, and owns $324,000 in stocks. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 9.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01208-JHC
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR ORDER AGAINST VEXATIOUS v. LITIGANT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM KENZO,
Defendant.
I INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. It has come to the Court’s attention that pro se Plaintiff Cortez Jones has recently filed 57 civil lawsuits in the Western District of Washington, including the present action. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff Jones to show cause within 21 days why it should not enter a vexatious litigant and standing bar order against him as described below.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR II Below is a list of the cases Jones recently filed in this District, as of the drafting of this
order: 1. Jones v. General Services Administration, Case No. 23-1148-JCC: Jones alleges that the General Administration Services discriminated against him and failed to return his property, causing him $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 25, 2023, Judge Coughenour adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 8.
2. Jones v. Fidelity Investments, Case No. 23-1149-LK: Jones alleges that Fidelity Investments deprived him of access to his funds, resulting in more than $12 billion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, Judge King deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation in light of Jones’s amended IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 3. Jones v. King County Sheriff et al., Case No. 23-1150-JNW: Jones alleges that the King
County Courthouse, King County Judges, “the residence at Rainier Square,” the City of NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Seattle, Bruce Harrell, and Fidelity Investments discriminated against him and stole multiple business and corporations from him. He alleges $964,000,000,000,000.00 in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form
that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. The IFP application is currently pending. 4. Jones v. United States Postal Service et al., Case No. 23-1151-RAJ: Jones alleges that “stolen property” led to injuries and hardship regarding his work life, resulting in $500 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023,
United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 5. Jones v. King County Courthouse, Case No. 23-1152-LK: Jones alleges that King County Courthouse stole property from him, resulting in more than $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 21, 2023, Judge King
deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation in light of Jones’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR amended IFP application in another case, where he indicated that he could not afford to pay the filing fee. Dkt. # 7. 6. Jones v. Harrell et al., Case No 23-1153-RSM: Jones alleges that the City of Seattle, its
police, and its mayor stole his identity and property, resulting in $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 8. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 10.
7. Jones v. University of Washington Medicine, Case No. 23-1154-TL: Jones alleges that University of Washington doctors committed medical malpractice leading to the wrongful death of Patricia Paramore. He seeks “twenty trillion eight hundred million” dollars in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 11. 8. Jones v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Case No. 23-1162-RSM: Jones alleges that
the Drug Enforcement Administration stole his identity and paid for murder, with references to freemasonry and the Italian mafia, resulting in over $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he had received at least $324,000 in the past twelve months, and owns $324,000 in stocks. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 9.
9. Jones v. Sawant, Case No. 23-1163-RSL: Jones alleges that Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant worked with “Halal Guy owners” and Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson to “run [a] terrorist business” against him. Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks damages of $20 trillion for “attempted murder,” $30 trillion for “terrorist act” violations, and $500 million for “gangstalking.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peterson issued
a second Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR denied, noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 11.
10. Jones v. United States Military et al., Case No. 23-1164-TL: Jones alleges that Mike Chapman, Dennis Lemma, University of Washington Medicine, and “Major Sheriff County” are members of a terrorist organization and that they stole his property, forged his signature, and stole his identity. He seeks $9610 trillion in damages. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. 11. Jones v. Wheat et al., Case No. 23-1165-RSL: Jones names the University of Washington Harborview Medical Center and two of its employees, Stefan K. Wheat and Lorenzo
Gonzalez, in his suit seeking $21 billion dollars “for life threatening injuries not cared for however charged by the hospital and false eval massive concussion due to jumping & stabbing.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 6. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Dkt. # 8. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 12. Jones v. United States Military et al., Case No. 23-1166-JHC: Jones alleges that U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, and Bob Ferguson worked with attorneys to lie about his identity. Jones also alleges that University of Washington worked with US
Senators to wire Google AdSense money into the banks of Mike Chapman, Kenneth McGraw, and Dennis Lemma. He seeks $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 30, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 9. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a second
Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s second IFP application be denied, stating, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s amended IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court, including his previous IFP application in this case.” Dkt. # 11. On August 31, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s second IFP application. Dkt. # 12. 13. Jones v. United States Courthouse et al., Case No. 23-1167-SAB: Jones alleges that several United States Magistrate Judges and District Judges committed attempted murder via robbery. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United
States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. 14. Jones v. Davis Law Group et al., Case No. 23-1168-JHC: Jones alleges that “US
attorneys – Ann Davidson,” Davis Law Group, and “US Courthouse” committed discrimination against him, and “neglect w/ help of DEA against Cortez Jones sole investigator on file,” resulting in $450 trillion in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he had received at least $324,000 in the past twelve months, and owns $324,000 in stocks. Dkt. # 1. On August 7, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. 15. Jones v. Pornhub Community, Case No. 23-1169-RAJ: Jones alleges that Pornhub Community stole money from his content and engaged in stalking, resulting in $20
trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 16. Jones v. United States Senators et al., Case No. 23-1170-RSL: Jones seeks damages of $460 trillion from U.S. Senator Patty Murray for a variety of claims, including attempted murder. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States
Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a second Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s amended IFP application be denied, noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 11. 17. Jones v. King County Jail et al., Case No. 23-1182-JCC: Jones alleges “discrimination” and “terrorism through a jail on multiple occasions” by King County Jail, Snohomish County Jail, and SCORE Jail. Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks “thirteen billion seven hundred million dollars” in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On
August 11, 2023, Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 18. Jones v. BECU, Case No. 23-1183-JCC: Jones alleges that BECU violated the law “based on banking in America, antitrust & civil rights matters,” causing him $30 million in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 2023, Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 19. Jones v. Sound Transit, Case No. 23-1184-RSM: Jones alleges that he was stabbed by a passenger on sound transit “who did not pay fare” and that “RCW states Sound Transit is
liable for any injuries.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP
application be denied. Dkt. # 2. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 10. 20. Jones v. Gorman, Case No. 23-1185-RSM: Jones alleges that the United States Attorney and the Department of Justice discriminated against him. His statement of claim reads,
“RCW states all investigations and compensation cannot be signed by only an attorney.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt # 9. 21. Jones v. Harborview Medical Center et al., Case No. 23-1186-JLR: Jones alleges that
Harborview Medical Center and the University of Washington slandered him and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR attempted to murder him “via medical malpractice.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 15, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 4. 22. Jones v. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 23-1189-RAJ: Jones alleges “stolen property,” “negotiable stolen compensation,” and “EPA cannot sign for anyone else property claim.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP
application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 8. 23. Jones v. Seattle Times, Case No. 23-1190-TL: Jones alleges that the Seattle Times slandered, defamed, and attempted to murder him. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Dkt. # 1-1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 24. Jones v. Edmonds Police, Case No. 23-1194-JLR: Jones alleges that the Edmonds Police committed “Police brutality – Gangstalking turned into murder and robbery.” Dkt. # 1-1. He requests $57 billion (negotiable) in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in
forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 2. On August 15, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP motions. Dkt. # 6. On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 18, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 8.
25. Jones v. Department of Justice, Case No. 23-1195-JNW: Jones alleges that the Department of Justice committed civil rights, property, antitrust, and arbitration violations. He does not specify the relief sought. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 26. Jones v. Kenzo et al., Case No. 23-1208-JHC: Jones alleges that the William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Court of Appeals, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Central Intelligence Agency committed “Racketeering (robbery out of US government building),” and “stolen property from
GSA EPA & fines via the state. William Kenzo Nakamura is fining, printing checks & NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR not informing the claimant.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 30, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 7. 27. Jones v. Tukwila City Hall, Case No. 23-1211-JHC: Jones alleges that the Tukwila City Hall committed “racketeering” when it discriminated against him. Dkt. # 1-1. He also alleges that the City Hall stole “damage money” from him. Id. He requests “payment of medical bills and & overtime disabilities.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00.
Dkt. # 1. On August 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 28. Jones v. Pichai et al., Case No. 23-1218-JCC: Jones alleges that “Google has Cortez Jones as YouTube content ID owner & the money was paid to someone else – all money acquired belongs to Cortez Jones.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks two hundred million trillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 31, 2023, Judge Coughenour dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 6.
29. Jones v. Paramore, Case No. 23-1223-JHC: Jones alleges that Kevin Bryan Paramore committed “murder” by poisoning a victim. Dkt. # 1-1. In the section of the complaint stating the relief sought, he says that he “claimed due to the death of my mother.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 18, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 6.
30. Jones v. Beetham Tran Law Firm, Case No. 23-1224-JLR: Jones alleges that Beetham Tran Law Firm “keeps stealing compensation after murders.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief he requests is “money would suffice the medical bills & insurance my mom would usually cover.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 16, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 31. Jones v. Triple Canopy Inc., Case No. 23-1225-LK: Jones alleges that Triple Canopy
refused him entry into the FBI and DEA, causing $40 million in damages. Jones seeks to NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’ IFP
application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 32. Jones v. Campbell et al., Case No. 23-1230-JCC: Jones makes no allegations or claims in his complaint against Frank Campbell, Valentine Campbell, Cyrus Campbell, and Anna Kennedy. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 33. Jones v. Nelson et al., Case No. 23-1232-RAJ: Jones alleges that City of Seattle Council members, including Sara Nelson, discriminated against him and committed “racketeering
corrupt organization/robbery lost wages.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks damages of three hundred million trillion dollars. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. 34. Jones v. Labor Works Industrial Staffing, Case No. 23-1233-JHC: Jones alleges that Labor Works Industrial Staffing committed discrimination and would not allow him to work “based on color & religious views.” Dkt. # 1-1. He requests relief in the form of
“medical bills & rent.” Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4.
35. Jones v. Tritant et al., Case No. 23-1234-RAJ: Jones alleges that Jean Marie Tritant, who he states owns Pacific Place, committed “robbery of corrupt owner connections.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones also names as Defendants the City of Seattle, Pacific Place, and Unico Properties, but does not include any allegations regarding these defendants. Id. Jones seeks “two hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary is $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4.
36. Jones v. The White House et al., Case No. 23-1262-TL: Jones alleges that the White House, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Steve Ripken discriminated against him. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones states that he “compromised multiple terrorists without the president knowing due to a military robbery,” and that the “White House is comfortable with allowing terrorist[s] to attack” him. Id. Jones seeks “one hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 6. 37. Jones v. Central Intelligence Agency et al., Case No. 23-1263-TL: Jones alleges that the
Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Army, and the United States Navy committed discrimination, robbery of military artillery and healthcare, racketeering, and civil infractions due to their alleged use of Jones’s “credit to compromise terrorists in our country.” Dkt. 1-1. Jones seeks two hundred septillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Kate Vaughan issued an amended Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 6.
38. Jones v. Dubin Law Group et al., Case No. 23-1269-JHC: Jones alleges that Dubin Law Group, Lisa O’Toole, “4th & Blanchard,” and Seattle Litigations Group robbed him via forged signature and attempted to murder him, resulting in $1 billion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. On August 31, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied
Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 39. Jones v. Alway et al., Case No. 23-1283-TL: Jones alleges that Donald Alway stalked him, robbed him, and discriminated against him, resulting in $2 trillion in damages. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not
employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. 40. Jones v. Port of Seattle et al., Case No. 23-1284-JNW: Jones alleges that the Port of Seattle Police, the Seattle Police, and City of Seattle City Hall discriminated against him and committed “terrorism to cover corruption.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks forty trillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 41. Jones v. Seetoo et al., Case No. 23-1285-RSM: Jones alleges that Jennifer Seetoo, station captain of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Calabassas Police in California, Donald Alway, the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI field office, and the Los Angeles California FBI robbed him. Dkt. # 1-1. His requested relief is “twenty trillion dollars” with interest of 30%. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is unemployed and has received no money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 29, 2023, Judge Martinez dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failing to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) for bringing the case in the wrong
venue. Dkt. # 3. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 42. Jones v. Lil Uzi Vert, Case No. 23-1286-JNW: Jones alleges that Lil Uzi Vert committed robbery in connection with his record label. He seeks twenty trillion dollars in damages. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is
unemployed and has received no money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 4. 43. Jones v. SCORE Jail et al., Case No. 23-1287-JLR: Jones alleges that the SCORE Jail in Seatac incorrectly assigned his housing placement during incarceration and deprivation of adequate recreation time. He does not specify the relief requested. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary
was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court, including applications contemporaneously filed with this action.” Dkt. # 6. On August 30, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 7. 44. Jones v. Facebook et al., Case No. 23-1288-JCC: Jones alleges that Facebook plans to control him using AI and seeks one hundred million trillion dollars in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not
employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR August 23, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 25, 2023, Judge Coughenour adopted the Report and Recommendation and
denied Jones’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 45. Jones v. Seattle Talent Agency, Case No. 23-1289-JLR: Jones alleges that Seattle Talent Agency forged his signature, causing him $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary is $0. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 6. On August 30, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation
and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 7. 46. Jones v. Rolling Loud, Case No. 23-1290-TL: Jones alleges that The Rolling Loud committed robbery, terrorism, cyber hacking, discrimination, and deprivation. Dkt. # 1- 1. He seeks one hundred million trillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is unemployed and has received no money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 47. Jones v. Burien Nissan et al., Case No. 23-1291-JCC: Jones alleges that Burien Nissan committed “470 – Burien Nissan Robbery & Terrorist Group of Cortez Daundre Jones After Running Human Trafficking/Gangstalking.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks twenty trillion
dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. The IFP application is currently pending. 48. Jones v. Alphabet Inc. et al., Case No. 23-1292-RSL: Jones alleges that “David Tepper of Google” has stolen trillions of dollars from him.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks “2 billion 400 hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. 49. Jones v. Federal Bureau of Investigations et al., Case No. 23-1294-TL: Jones alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Donald Alway, and Richard Collidi committed robbery and discrimination, and that they “close all deals using Cortez Daundre Jones credit while hiding the identity behind the actual investigator.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks “1600 one billion 600 million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 50. Jones v. Snohomish County Jail, Case No. 23-1295-RAJ: Jones alleges that the
Snohomish County jail has not been investigated for accepting payment from the FBI to arrest him. He seeks forty trillion dollars in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 25, 2023, Judge Jones dismissed the case sua sponte for failing to state a claim. Dkt. # 4. 51. Jones v. O’Toole et al., Case No. 23-1296-JHC: Jones alleges that Judge Lisa O’Toole has helped multiple companies use hackers to rob Jones in exchange for money and credit for prosecutions at the district court King County Court House, causing him $100 million trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his
IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 25, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 52. Jones v. Microsoft Corporation et al., Case No. 23-1297-JHC: Jones alleges that Microsoft Corporation, Satya Nadella, Bill Gates, and Bob Ferguson committed “470- Robbery & terrorism by park web hacker group at 4th Blanchard building in Seattle WA,” resulting in $100 trillion in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not
received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 25, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6.
53. Jones v. Versace et al., Case No. 23-1298-JNW: Jones alleges robbery via models in connection to Versace against Versace, Alexander Wang, Vivian Wang, and Dubin Law Group. He seeks “twenty trillion dollars” and “30% interest” in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. The IFP application is currently pending. 54. Jones v. Wang et al., Case No. 23-1299-JHC: Jones alleges that Alexander Wang, Versace, and another illegible defendant committed “470 – Robbery via Alexander Wang Connections,” resulting in $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in
forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. On August 31, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. 55. Jones v. Washington State Department of Revenue et al., Case No. 23-1300-JCC: Jones alleges “Martin Selig robbery via Washington State Department of Revenue & Newmark
of Cortez Daundre Jones via Microsoft Corp & real estate connections to US Bank NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR Centre.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks either two hundred trillion or one trillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. #
1. The IFP application is currently pending. 56. Jones v. Seattle City Hall et al., Case No. 23-1301-RAJ: Jones alleges that “Seattle City Hall works with Satya Nadella & Ferguson” to rob him. Dkt. # 1-1. He does not specify the relief sought. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 29, 2023, Judge Jones dismissed the case sua sponte for failing to state a claim. Dkt. # 5. 57. Jones v. Ferguson et al., Case No. 23-1302-RSM: Jones alleges that Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson as well as Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and others,
caused his homeless or robbed him via a casino, resulting in two hundred trillion dollars in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 31, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Jones filed a single “Objections” document in all 57 of his cases, stating, “all IFP have been edited to explain the income reported was in fact income that was not reported via taxes and income from investments that have not been made available to spend…Even though I have made money on investment [sic] not all of the funds were made
available after the account was closed and Fidelity Investments did not provide a proper fraud NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR investigation…” See, e.g., Case No. 23-2269-RAJ at Dkt. # 9. Various judges have addressed these objections, either by construing them as motions for reconsideration and denying them, see, e.g., Jones v. Gorman, Case No. 23-1185-RSM at Dkt. # 11, or striking them as procedurally
improper, see, e.g., Jones v. Seattle Talent Agency, Case No. 23-1289-JLR at Dkt. # 5. III The All Writs Acts, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Under the power of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), enjoining litigants with abusive and lengthy histories is one such form of restriction that the district court may take.”). Although such orders should be used sparingly, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that
properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). In the Ninth Circuit, a vexatious litigant order may be entered when (1) the litigant has received notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered, (2) there is an adequate record for review, (3) the litigant’s actions are frivolous or harassing, and (4) the vexatious litigant order is “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48; Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. The first two factors are procedural, while the “latter two factors ... are substantive considerations ... [that] help the district court define who is, in fact, a ‘vexatious litigant’ and construct a remedy that will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the
litigant’s right to access the courts.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR A. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard The first factor requires that an individual has fair notice of the possibility that they may be declared a vexatious litigant, and further, that they be given an opportunity to oppose the
order before it is entered. Id. at 1147, 1058. This does not require the court to hold an in-person hearing, as “’the opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements.’” Reddy v. MedQuist, Inc., No. 12-cv-1324-PSG, 2012 WL 6020010, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (quoting Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058); see Gavin v. City & Cty. of S.F., No. 15-CV-05202-EMC, 2016 WL 126937, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (holding opportunity to file a written opposition satisfies first De Long factor; collecting cases). Here, the first factor is met because, through this order, Jones has received notice and an opportunity to submit a written response before a pre-filing order is potentially entered against him. B. Adequate Record for Review
An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that lead the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order is needed. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147 (citing Martin–Trigona v. Lavien, 737 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir. 1984)). At a minimum, the record should show that the litigant’s activities are numerous or abusive. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. This factor is met because the Court has chronicled and described all the actions—57 in total—that Jones has filed in this District. C. Frivolous or Harassing Filings The third De Long factor “gets to the heart of the vexatious litigant analysis,” see Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059, and requires the district court to look to “both the number and content of the filings as indicia” of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims, De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. “An
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059. Because this factor requires substantive consideration, courts look toward a separate set
of considerations that provide a “helpful framework”: (1) the litigant’s history of litigation, and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, in other words, whether the litigant has an objective good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.
Id. at 1058. These five substantive factors help determine whether a party is a vexatious litigant and, if so, the sanction that is required to stop the vexatious litigation. Id. (citing Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Cir. 1986)). The final consideration—whether other remedies would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties—is particularly important. Ringgold Lockhart v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). Jones’s previous filings demonstrate that he is a vexatious litigant. First, Jones has filed numerous actions, and several have been dismissed for failing to state a claim. See Johns v. Los Gatos, 834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (entering vexatious litigant order against a plaintiff who had filed five similar actions over a period of ten years). Second, he has identified no viable legal theory in support of his numerous claims. Third, Jones has filed all his claims as a pro se litigant, meaning that he has never been represented by counsel. Fourth, he has filed IFP applications for all of his claims, using the Court’s limited resources to bring his claims. Additionally, his lawsuits have placed an unwarranted burden on the District and followed a pattern: He initially filed IFP applications stating that his income was $35,000.00 a month. Following denials of these applications, he began filing supplemental IFP applications claiming NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR no income or assets. Additionally, since August 18, 2023, all his IFP applications claim no income or assets. Finally, other sanctions, such as monetary fines, would be overly punitive and not dissuade Jones from continued filings given that his IFP requests have shown that he likely
has limited financial resources. Thus, Jones has filed multiple lawsuits, all of which are frivolous or fantastical, legally unsupported, and imposing substantial cost to the courts. D. Narrowly Tailored The fourth and final factor requires that the pre-filing order be narrowly tailored to the vexatious litigant’s wrongful behavior. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. “Narrowly tailored orders are needed ‘to prevent infringement of the litigator’s right of access to the courts.”’ De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 (citing Sires v. Gabriel, 748 F.2d 49, 51 (1st Cir. 1984)). The pre-filing restriction must fit the plaintiff’s specific practices. See, e.g., Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Com.,
Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1525 (9th Cir. 1983) (the injunction must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts sought to be restrained). Here, Jones has brought multiple, meritless IFP lawsuits before multiple judges in this District. Thus, the specific vice the Court seeks to address and remedy is the serial filing of facially frivolous or fantastical lawsuits by a pro se litigant. IV Based on these findings and a thorough review of the record, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff Jones to SHOW CAUSE why a vexatious litigant bar order should not be issued in this District. Specifically, such a bar order would include the following restrictions:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR l 1) The Clerk will initially file all Jones’s future pro se complaints and motions for in forma pauperis in a miscellaneous case number specifically designated for this purpose pending the Court’s review of each such complaint and motion.! 2) The Clerk will not issue summonses in any pro se action filed by Jones without approval of the Court. 3) The Court may dismiss any future pro se complaint and motions for in forma pauperis status upon a finding that the complaint suffers from the same defects outlined above, or others, without issuing an order to show cause. Plaintiff Jones’s Response is due no later than 21 days from the date of this Order and may not exceed 12 pages. No attachments are permitted. Failure to file a response will result in the issuance of the above bar order. Dated this 31st day of August, 2023. Jake Hi. Oban John H. Chun United States District Judge ‘Tf Plaintiff is represented by counsel, then any complaint he files as a represented party may receive a civil number immediately without the need of first filing it under the specially designated miscellaneous case number. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR ORDER AGAINST VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND ORDER TO SHOW
Jones v. Kenzo (Jones v. Kenzo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.