Ma v. Department of Education

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 ROLAND MA, CASE NO. C19-1112-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 13 CALIFORNIA, 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Based upon the record in this matter, it 17 appears Plaintiff is using the Court as a vehicle to harass and antagonize certain parties, rather 18 than as a forum to resolve a valid dispute. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 67, 72.) The Court has been 19 apprised that Plaintiff has not complied with the parties’ settlement agreement and, therefore, 20 remains in contempt of the Court. (Dkt. No. 72.) Yet Plaintiff has failed to make any of the $250 21 weekly payments required by the Court in its previous orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 62, 69.) 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court may enjoin a vexatious litigant to restrict such 23 litigant’s access to the Court. Before doing so, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to 24 be heard. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court 25 ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose a vexatious litigant order for 26 his repeated abuses of the judicial process in this matter. Such an order would limit Plaintiff’s 1 ability to bring future claims against parties before this Court. Plaintiff’s response must be filed 2 no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and may not exceed five (5) pages 3 in length. 4 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 5 6 DATED this 29th day of December 2020. A 7 8 9 John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26