Miner v. Kanner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 14, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MADIHA MINER, CASE NO. C19-1047JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE v. CLERK TO TRANSFER THE 12 COMPLAINT TO MS19-0106JLR PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S SAMANTHA KANNER, 13 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER AND TO CLOSE THIS MATTER Defendant. 14

15 Plaintiff Madiha Miner filed this lawsuit on July 8, 2019. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) 16 To date, Defendant Samantha Kanner has not appeared; nor is there any evidence that 17 Ms. Miner has served Ms. Kanner.1 (See generally Dkt.) 18

19 1 Ms. Miner has filed a notice of appeal concerning the court’s denial of her motion to recuse. (See Not. of App. (Dkt. # 10); see also Order Denying Mot. to Recuse (Dkt. # 9).) 20 Ordinarily, a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. See In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 903 (9th Cir. 2005). However, if the order at issue is interlocutory, an appeal is premature and does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court. See id. (citing Riggs v. Scrivner, Inc., 21 927 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1991)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion for 22 recusal. See, e.g., Baltuff v. United States, 35 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1929) (holding that there is no 1 On August 14, 2019, the court entered a vexatious litigant order against Ms. 2 Miner. See In re Madiha Miner, No. MS19-0106JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt # 1; see also

3 Miner v. Soc. Sec. Admin., et al., No. C19-0821JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 21. The 4 court’s vexatious litigant order is based upon Ms. Miner’s litigation conduct in this 5 district, which includes the filing of 12 lawsuits in less than four months—eight of which 6 have already been dismissed. See generally id. In addition, Ms. Miner filed more than 7 80 motions in her 12 suits. See generally id. The court has either denied or struck all of 8 Ms. Miner’s motions that it has considered so far, which includes more than 50. See

9 generally id. The court has already expended substantial judicial resources dealing with 10 Ms. Miner’s lawsuits. See generally id. Thus, to preserve judicial resources and because 11 no defendant has appeared or been served to date, the court will consider Ms. Miner’s 12 complaint in this matter pursuant to the litigation restrictions against her established in its 13 August 14, 2019, vexatious litigant order.

14 Accordingly, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to (1) re-file Ms. Miner’s complaint 15 (Dkt. # 1) in the miscellaneous matter, MS19-0106JR, established pursuant to the court’s 16 //

17 //

18 //

19 // 20

21 jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion for recusal); McColgan v. Lineker, 289 F. 253 (9th Cir.1923) (same). Accordingly, the court concludes that jurisdiction over this matter 22 remains with this court. 1 vexatious litigant order, (2) strike all of Ms. Miner’s pending motions in this matter (Dkt. 2 ## 6-7, 11-14), and (3) administratively close this civil matter.

3 Dated this 14th day of August, 2019. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22