Eclips v. Siegrist et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF "CASE" & WARNING NOTICE OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT: This "case" is dismissed. Signed by Judge Joshua M. Kindred on 9/7/21. (JLH, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LUNA ECLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYKEL SIEGRIST, et al.,

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK

Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF “CASE” &
WARNING NOTICE OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
On July 6, 2021, Luna Eclips, a self-represented prisoner, filed a “Notice of
Intent to File Suit/Lein.” 1 In this filing, Mr. Eclips lists various defendants, including
individuals, municipal entities, and an unknown body of jurors. 2 Without factual
allegations, Mr. Eclips lists his causes of action as: “Slander-Libel, Assault, Illegal
Detainment, Slander, Illegal Search & Seizure, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amend
violations, False Representation, Due Process Violations, Theft, Obstruction of
Justice, and Failure to Render Aide.” 3
dollars/arrests warrants be issued.” 4

1

Docket 1.

2

Docket 1.

3

Docket 1.

4

Docket 1.

For relief, he requests “$5.1 million

This is one of ten such filings submitted by Mr. Eclips since March 2, 2021. 5
In previous actions, the Court has informed Mr. Eclips that in order to commence
a civil action he must file (1) a complaint and (2) the $402 filing fee or an application
to waive the fee. 6

The Court provided extensive instructions and forms for

Mr. Eclips to use. In every instance, Mr. Eclips has ignored the Court’s guidance
and assistance. Repeatedly, he ignores the Court’s instructions, appeals a nondispositive order for which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction,
and engages in a cycle of unproductive litigation that results in a failure to
commence a civil action. 7
The Court provides instructions, forms, and guidance to self-represented
litigants to increase access and productive litigation from parties that cannot find
or afford a lawyer. However, the Court’s facilitated access to civil litigation does
not equate to a litigant conducting litigation in whatever manner they see fit. The
Court has an obligation to protect the limited resources of the judiciary. “Flagrant
abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person

See Eclips v. Williams, et al., 3:21-cv-00053-RRB; Eclips v. Guzman, et al.; 3:21-cv00084-JMK; Eclips v. Christensen, et al., 3:21-cv-00104-JMK; Eclips v. Talley, et al., 3:21cv-00106-JMK,; Eclips v. Leddy, et al., 3:21-cv-00120-JMK; Eclips v. Allen, et al., 3:21cv-00176-JMK; Eclips v. Hornsby, et al., 3:21-cv-00177-JMK; Eclips v. Hustin, et al., 3:21cv-00185-JMK; see also 3:21-cv-196-JMK, Eclips v. Rice, et al.
5

Eclips v. Williams, et al., 3:21-cv-00053-RRB, Docket 2; Eclips v. Guzman, et al., 3:21cv-00084-JMK, Docket 2; Eclips v. Christensen, et al., 3:21-cv-00104-JMK, Docket 3;
Eclips v. Talley, et al., 3:21-cv-00106-JMK, Docket 3.
6

7

Supra note 4.

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK, Eclips v. Siegrist, et al.
Order of Dismissal of “Case”
Page 2 of 6

to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the
meritorious claims of other litigants.” 8
Mr. Eclips has been a long-standing litigant in this Court and filed many civil
rights complaints. 9 In Eclips v. Volland et al., 3:18-cv-00169-TMB, the Court
issued this warning:
The Court notes Mr. Eclips repeated prior filings which
were dismissed for either lack of compliance or for failure
to state a claim (including those under his prior name
Bobby Kirkwood). The Court warns Mr. Eclips that
federal law requires Courts to issue “strikes” to prisoner
litigants who file federal lawsuits, which are ultimately
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failing to state a
claim. The Court has been lenient with Mr. Eclips’s prior
dismissals. However, he is cautioned that the next suit
that is dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or
failure to state a claim may result in a strike. After three
strikes, Mr. Eclips will be unable to file lawsuits under in
forma pauperis status, unless he demonstrates
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 10

8

De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990).

Supra note 4; see also Eclips v. Self, et al., 3:15-cv-00110-SLG; Eclips v. Volland, et
al.; 3:18-cv-00006-RRB; Eclips v. Volland, et al., 3:18-cv-00169-TMB; Eclips v. Houser,
et al., 3:19-cv-00197-SLG-MMS.
9

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (stating “[No prisoner shall] bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,
1123 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the constitutionality of the strike system imposed by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act).
10

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK, Eclips v. Siegrist, et al.
Order of Dismissal of “Case”
Page 3 of 6

In February 2021, Mr. Eclips filed a complaint in Eclips v. Cass, et al., 3:21-cv00038-RRB. The Court screened and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for
failing to state a claim and frivolousness and issued Mr. Eclips’s third strike. 11
Since Eclips v. Cass, Mr. Eclips has begun to file “notices” without the filing
fee or an application to waive the fee with the Court numerous times. Despite
repeated guidance, Mr. Eclips refuses to file a complaint. 12 This recent deluge of
“notices” is a significant change from Mr. Eclips’s historical compliance with basic
civil procedure and filing requirements, seemingly triggered by Mr. Eclips’s strike
status. The Court finds these “notices” to be an attempt to avoid filing limitations
set by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Mr. Eclips’s litigation history, in conjunction with his repeated pattern of
behavior, indicates this to be a litigation strategy that lacks merit, but also is a willful
attempt to suborn acts of Congress and the rules of this Court. Further, Mr. Eclips’s
long litigation history demonstrates that he understands and can file civil
complaints, but now willfully chooses not to engage in productive litigation before
this Court. Mr. Eclips’s repeated drain on the Court’s resources in his attempts to
avoid the Court’s mandated duties and its civil rules no longer will be tolerated.

11

Eclips v. Cass, et al., 3:21-cv-00038-RRB, Docket 10.

12

Supra note 5.

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK, Eclips v. Siegrist, et al.
Order of Dismissal of “Case”
Page 4 of 6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This “case” is dismissed as per the Court’s prior Orders at Eclips v.
Christensen, et al., 3:21-cv-00104-JMK at Docket 3; Eclips v. Talley,
et al., 3:21-cv-00106-JMK at Docket 3.

2.

In light of the Court’s findings in this Order, all further “Notices” lacking
a filing fee or an application to waive the filing fee shall be
automatically dismissed per this Order without further notice to
Mr. Eclips.

3.

Should Mr. Eclips continue to file deficient, meritless “notices” with the
Court, the Court may be forced to enter a pre-filing review order, which
will label Mr. Eclips as a “vexatious litigant” and prevent him from filing
any further lawsuits without pre-filing review by this Court. This order
actually would be broader and more extensive than the strike rule of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because it would apply to Mr. Eclips regardless
of his incarceration status.

4.

The Court reminds Mr. Eclips that in order to properly commence a
civil action, a litigant must file a complaint and either the filing fee of
$402.00 or an application to waive prepayment of the filing fee. 13
Mr. Eclips’s “three strikes” status does not prevent him from filing

13

Local Civil Rule 3.1(c).

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK, Eclips v. Siegrist, et al.
Order of Dismissal of “Case”
Page 5 of 6

complaints or applications to waive the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
provides that a self-represented prisoner cannot bring a civil action in
forma pauperis (receive a waiver of prepayment of fees or costs), if
“on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated” the prisoner
brought actions that were dismissed as “frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed]
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 14 Congress
maintains an exception allowing a prisoner to file in forma pauperis if
under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 15 Mr. Eclips may
file complaints with this Court and pay the filing fee. Or, he may file a
complaint and an application to waive the filing fee and be granted in
forma pauperis status, if in his complaint he shows an “imminent
danger of serious physical injury.”
DATED this 7th of September, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

15

Id.

Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JMK, Eclips v. Siegrist, et al.
Order of Dismissal of “Case”
Page 6 of 6