Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1987)Annotate this Case
In re Kamal B. MAHDAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 1, 1989.* Decided March 19, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Marilyn Hall Patel, District Judge, Presiding.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Kamal B. Mahdavi appeals pro se the district court's order denying him leave to file the complaint endorsed by the district court "Received November 13, 1987." We affirm.
The court based its order on a prior action, Mahdavi v. Director of Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, No. CV-85-2827-MHP (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 1985). In that action, the district court concluded that Mahdavi was abusing the processes of the court because he repeatedly filed nonmeritorious actions. Accordingly, in an order dated April 18, 1985, Judge Patel (1) dismissed the action and (2) ordered that "the Clerk of the Court shall not file any further complaints, petitions, or papers submitted by Mr. Mahdavi until they have been approved and found by a judge of this District to have sufficient merit for filing." Id. at 2. A panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld that order on appeal: " [W]e have reviewed the April 18, 1985 prefiling review order on its merits.... The order was an appropriate response to petitioner's repeated frivolous filings." Mahdavi v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, No. 86-7150, slip op. at 4 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 1987).
Based upon our review of the complaint in this case, we conclude that the district court acted properly in denying Mahdavi leave to file. "The complaint rambles on for 51 pages. It is not a clear and concise statement. It lumps together everybody that plaintiff apparently believes has ever mistreated him." Order Denying Leave To File Complaint, (Nov. 23, 1987), at 1. The district court could properly have dismissed Mahdavi's complaint without leave to amend, as it is "absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam))), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 561 (1988). Therefore, it was proper for the district court to deny leave to file the complaint.
Furthermore, the order in this case would not deny Mahdavi, a pro se litigant, his constitutional right of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977). The order neither precludes nor unduly burdens Mahdavi from submitting a new and nonfrivolous complaint. See Green v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 370 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 960 (1983).