Smith v. City of Fresno

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0420 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF ) SHOULD NOT BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS 13 v. ) LITIGANT ) 14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Candace Smith is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, as she has in each 18 case filed before this Court. Because Plaintiff has an extensive history of frivolous and repetitive 19 litigation in this district, Plaintiff SHALL show cause as to why she should not be declared a 20 vexatious litigant and subjected to pre-filing conditions. 21 Courts have authority to issue pre-filing orders that restrict a litigant’s ability to initiate court 22 proceedings. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit observed 23 that “pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty 24 Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot 25 be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be 26 used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. 27 Pursuant to Local Rule 151(b), the Eastern District of California adopted the provisions of 28 Title 3A, part 2 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding vexatious litigants. Under 1 California law, a vexatious litigant is defined as a person who: 2 (1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other 3 than in a small claims court that have been [] finally determined adversely to the person or … 4 (2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, 5 repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants 6 as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or 7 concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined. 8 (3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files 9 unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended 10 to cause unnecessary delay.

11 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 391(b). These provisions were “designed to curb misuse of the court system by 12 those persistent and obsessive litigants who … waste the time and resources of the court system and 13 other litigants.” Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1169 (2011). 14 Under federal law, the Court is instructed to consider “both the number and content of the 15 filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. “The 16 plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Moy v. United 17 States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, prior to declaring litigant “vexatious” and 18 entering pre-filing restrictions, the Court must (1) provide the litigant notice and a chance to be heard, 19 (2) create an adequate record for review, (3) make substantive findings as to the frivolous nature of the 20 litigant’s actions, and (4) ensure any pre-filing order is “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice 21 encountered” by the Court. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48; Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. 22 Plaintiff qualifies as a vexatious litigant under the above provisions of California law, because 23 she filed more than 20 actions in since January 2024, which the Court has dismissed for lack of 24 jurisdiction and/or failure to prosecute. None of the cases Plaintiff filed proceeded beyond the initial 25 screening phase. Plaintiff’s numerous non-meritorious filings have demanded significant judicial 26 resources—despite the ongoing judicial emergency in this district—because the Court is required to 27 screen each complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. Although the Court 28 repeatedly explained the applicable pleading standards and its limited jurisdiction, Plaintiff persists in 1 || filing matters that do not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction and filing complaints that fail to state a clair 2 || The Court cannot continue to expend its limited resources on Plaintiffs frivolous filings. See De 3 || Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of this order why she 5 || should not be declared a vexatious litigant and pre-filing restrictions should not be imposed. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 8, 2025 ( Li pA L. wan 9 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28