Hollis v. Sloan, et al
Filing
64
ORDER denying 57 Motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/16/11. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:08-cv-2674 GEB KJN P
vs.
PHILLIP SLOAN, et al.,
ORDER
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Defendants have filed a
17
motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant,” pursuant to Local Rule 151(b), which would
18
require plaintiff to post security before this action may proceed. Local Rule 151(b) provides:
19
20
21
22
On its own motion or on motion of a party, the Court may at any
time order a party to give a security, bond, or undertaking in such
amount as the Court may determine to be appropriate. The
provisions of Title 3A, part 2, of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, are hereby adopted as a
procedural Rule of this Court on the basis of which the Court may
order the giving of a security, bond, or undertaking, although the
power of the Court shall not be limited thereby.
23
24
25
Local Rule 151(b). “Vexatious litigant” is defined as:
(b) “Vexatious litigant” means a person who does any of the
following:
26
1
(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least
five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i)
finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably
permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been
brought to trial or hearing.
1
2
3
4
(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the
person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria
persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same
defendant or defendants 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 concluded by the final
determination against the same defendant or defendants as to
whom the litigation was finally determined.
5
6
7
8
(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files
unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts
unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous
or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
9
10
11
13
(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any
state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based
upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or
occurrence.
14
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b). Section 391.1 governs a motion for order requiring security and
15
sets forth the grounds required to obtain such an order:
12
In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until
final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon
notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish
security. The motion must be based upon the ground, and
supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and
that there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the
litigation against the moving defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1.
The Ninth Circuit counsels caution in declaring plaintiffs “vexatious,” explaining
21
22
that “orders restricting a person’s access to the courts must be based on adequate justification
23
supported in the record and narrowly tailored to address the abuse perceived.” DeLong v.
24
Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 1990). Strictly speaking, plaintiff brought at least five
25
unsuccessful lawsuits in the seven years prior to the filing of his original complaint in this
26
////
2
1
action.1 However, based on defendants’ motion, this court cannot say that plaintiff’s filings have
2
been so “numerous or abusive” or “inordinate” to warrant a “vexatious litigant” order. Id. at
3
1147-48 (examples of “numerous or abusive” filings include plaintiffs who have filed 35 related
4
complaints, more than 50 frivolous cases, or more than 600 complaints). Nor can this court say
5
that plaintiff’s litigation activity reflects a “pattern of harassment.” Id. at 1140.
Moreover, it is not clear that plaintiff has no reasonable probability of succeeding
6
7
on the merits of this case, something which must be shown before plaintiff can be declared
8
“vexatious.” Accord, Hollis v. Dezember, 2010 WL 4220535 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (denying
9
defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant” because the court could not
10
determine at that juncture that there was no reasonable probability that plaintiff would not prevail
11
against any defendant); Hollis v. Gorby, 2011 WL 2924322 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (same). In fact, on
12
September 30, 2010, plaintiff’s claims survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 52.)
In his opposition to the present motion, plaintiff asserts that his amended
13
14
complaint states claims for denial of mental health treatment and retaliation, but states that it
15
does “not make any claims . . . that my 8th Amendment rights [were] violated because staff
16
breached my confidentiality [,] [a]lthough the court construed the complaint that I did.” (Dkt.
17
No. 60 at 2.) Plaintiff offers to “stipulate to revoke the construed 8th Amendment claim related
18
to staff breach of confidentiality and ask that it be dismissed.” (Id.) Defendants reply that
19
plaintiff’s offer “demonstrates that plaintiff is either maliciously filing claims that he never
20
intended to litigate in the first place, or that plaintiff is being untruthful in an attempt to avoid
21
being declared vexatious.” (Dkt. No. 61 at 2.) Defendants note that plaintiff served
22
interrogatories on defendant Murray regarding the confidentiality of plaintiff’s mental health
23
////
24
////
25
1
26
Based on court records identified by defendants, the court takes judicial notice of this
fact pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
3
1
screening on November 9, 2007,2 wherein he sought to ascertain how many CDCR officers were
2
present at the screening. (Dkt. No. 61 at 2.) Defendants argue that this discovery mirrors
3
plaintiff’s claim in the amended complaint that CDCR staff were allowed to be present during
4
the November 9, 2007 appointment. (Id., citing Dkt. No. 13 at 8.)
This court does not find plaintiff’s position malicious or untruthful. Although
5
6
plaintiff did not include the terms “breach of confidentiality” in his amended complaint, the court
7
liberally construed, as it must, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment allegations to include a breach of
8
confidentiality claim. The fact that plaintiff thereafter propounded discovery on this issue does
9
not mean that plaintiff’s subsequent request to dismiss the claim demonstrates maliciousness or
10
untruthfulness. It is just as likely that plaintiff reviewed his claims and decided, perhaps after
11
receiving discovery responses, that his breach of confidentiality claim may lack merit or, equally
12
plausible, that plaintiff is merely proposing a compromise to foreclose a finding that he is
13
vexatious. Under these circumstances, the court will not authorize dismissal of plaintiff’s breach
14
of confidentiality claim. However, as indicated by plaintiff, the parties may file a stipulation to
15
have that claim dismissed.
The breach of confidentiality claim is just one of the claims that survived
16
17
defendants’ motion to dismiss. As previously determined by the court, “[t]his action shall
18
proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for damages, including his claim for damages
19
based on the alleged breach of mental health confidentiality, and plaintiff’s retaliation claims . . .
20
.” (Dkt. No. 52 at 2.) Defendants fail to identify anything in plaintiff’s amended complaint
21
which would compel the court to reconsider that ruling. At this juncture, the court cannot
22
determine that there is no reasonable probability that plaintiff will prevail on any of these claims
23
against any defendant. Indeed, the deadline for filing dispositive motions expired on July 15,
24
2011, and defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment.
25
2
26
Defendants refer to the date November 9, 2011, but this appears to be a typographical
error. (Dkt. No. 61 at 2.)
4
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ March
1
2
14, 2011 motion (Dkt. No. 57), to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant, is denied without
3
prejudice.
4
DATED: November 16, 2011
5
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
holl2674.vex
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
