John J. Doe v. The City of Oxnard et al

Filing 60

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) DEFENDANT CITY OF OXNARD'S MOTION FOR ORDER RE RENEWED NOTICE OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 52 by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court finds that the claims in plaintiff's Second Amended Com plaint ("SAC") run afoul of the 2014 Vexatious Litigant Order, in that they plead claims based on injuries to plaintiff's pets. Accordingly, the Court has hereby reviewed and screened the SAC and concludes that plaintiff's claims fall within the prohibitions of the 2014 Vexatious Litigant Order. The Court therefore STRIKES the SAC and ORDERS plaintiff to lodge a third amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. The City's request for a status conference to seek a stay is therefore DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
Date December 22, 2016
GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 
CONNIE LEE 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 
Proceedings:  

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A 
N/A 
(IN CHAMBERS) DEFENDANT CITY OF OXNARD’S MOTION
FOR ORDER RE RENEWED NOTICE OF VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (Dkt.
52, filed December 7, 2016)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of January
9, 2017 is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

On December 7, 2016, the City filed the instant renewed motion to declare plaintiff
a vexatious litigant “on the grounds that the SAC is now being prosecuted by a declared
vexatious litigant, who is proceeding in pro per.” Dkt. 52 at 2. In addition, the City
requests a status conference to: (a) establish the proper form for the caption in this action
because “plaintiff has made no formal motion to amend the caption or substitute parties
or counsel” and “Defendants are unsure of the proper caption for pleadings in this
Action”;1 and (b) request that defendants’ time to file responsive pleadings be stayed
until the Court determines whether the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) is
subject to pre-screening. Id. at 2, 5. In its conclusion, the City also requests that the
Court “dismiss, sua sponte, plaintiff’s action, with prejudice because plaintiff continues
to file complaints in this Action in violation of the Vexatious Litigant Order.” Id. at 6.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the City’s motion on December 21, 2016. Dkt. 54.
On February 6, 2014, in Broemer v. Bush, No. 2:10-cv-05193-MMM-RZ, Judge
Morrow designated plaintiff a vexatious litigant and required plaintiff to submit for

1

The Court notes that, on November 28, 2016, the Court terminated John J. Doe as
a party to this case and added Broemer as plaintiff. Therefore the Court declines to set a
status conference regarding the caption in this action.

CV-5213 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
Date December 22, 2016
GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.

screening any pleading that he proposes to file to initiate a new action, where the
pleading asserts claims based on the following perceived wrongs:
(1) efforts to manipulate Broemer’s personal and romantic relationships,
(2) efforts to manipulate Broemer’s consciousness, (3) efforts to limit
Broemer’s employment options or prevent him from being employed,
(4) attempts to use Broemer as a means of exposing government abuse,
(5) the unauthorized taking or use of Broemer’s writings, copyrighted work,
or intellectual property, (6) the “spiking” of Broemer’s food with stimulants,
drugs, toxins, bacteria, or fungi without his consent, (7) efforts to convince
Broemer that his legs are not the same length and to advise him on the
medical treatment he should obtain for the condition, (8) efforts to get
Broemer addicted to methamphetamine or other drugs, (9) efforts to promote
Broemer’s consumption of alcohol (10) compelling Broemer to work for the
government or the intelligence agencies of the United States, (11) retaliating
against Broemer for his public criticisms of prominent Republicans, (12) use
of Broemer in sting operations, (12) efforts to stall freeway traffic,
(13) attacks against Broemer or his pets using energy weapons, gas, or
microwaves, (14) efforts to sabotage Broemer’s vehicle, (15) the theft of
Broemer’s pets, (16) the monitoring of Broemer, (16) the eviction of
Broemer, and (17) any other matter related to any of the claims or issues
raised in the following actions: Broemer v. CIA, et al., No. CV 01-1629
MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer v. United States, et al., No. CV
01-07241 MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer v. Central Intelligence
Agency, et al., No. CV 01-0430 MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer
v. United States, et al., No. CV 03-09097 ER (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2003)[;]
Broemer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., No. CV 08-05515 MMM
(RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2008)[;] Broemer v. George Bush, et al., CV 10-05193
MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Broemer v. Bush, No. 2:10-cv-05193-MMM-RZ (Feb. 6, 2014 C.D. Cal.), dkt. 62 at 16
(“2014 Vexatious Litigant Order”). The court also found it appropriate for Broemer to
submit for screening any pleadings against the following parties:
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency, (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
(3) the Department of Justice, (4) the National Security Agency, (5) the
Department of Homeland Security, (6) the Defense Intelligence Agency,

CV-5213 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
Date December 22, 2016
GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.

(7) the United States Secret Service, (8) the United States Army, (9) the
Internal Revenue Service, (10) the United States Postal Service, (11) the
Office of Personnel Management, (12) the National Personnel Records
Center, (13) any agent or employee of those agencies and departments
(14) the United States House of Representatives, (15) the City and County of
Los Angeles, (16) former President George W. Bush; (17) former Vice
President Dick Cheney; (18) former CIA director George Tenet; and
(19) former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Id. at 17.
In the SAC—filed on November 28, 2016—plaintiff asserts two claims:
(1) violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) IIED. Dkt. 48.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s claims is that his “cats were poisoned and intentionally
exposed to parasites and other physical harms while Plaintiff resided in the City of
Oxnard, which individually or in combination led to the deaths of these pets.” Id. ¶ 9.
The Court finds that the claims in plaintiff’s SAC run afoul of the 2014 Vexatious
Litigant Order, in that they plead claims based on injuries to plaintiff’s pets.
Accordingly, the Court has hereby reviewed and screened the SAC and concludes that
plaintiff’s claims fall within the prohibitions of the 2014 Vexatious Litigant Order. The
Court therefore STRIKES the SAC and ORDERS plaintiff to lodge a third amended
complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The City’s request for a status
conference to seek a stay is therefore DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 
Initials of Preparer

CV-5213 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 

00 

CL 

Page 3 of 3