Michael O. DeVaughn v. Darren J. Mannion
Filing
43
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO FILE WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FULL FILING FEE STATUS SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED AS RULE 11 SANCTION by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/15/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Pacer Case Locator o Part 1, # 2 Pace Case Locator - Part 2) (ec)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN,
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff
v.
DARREN J. MANNION et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. ED CV 10-892-TJH (GJS)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
LEAVE TO FILE WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FULL
FILING FEE STATUS SHOULD
NOT BE REVOKED AS RULE 11
SANCTION
16
17
18
19
INTRODUCTION
20
This case has sat idle for roughly four years as the Court awaited DeVaughn’s
21
state court cases to become final. Ready to start again, the Court has discovered
22
what it believes were gross misrepresentations in the Complaint about DeVaughn’s
23
litigation history. Accordingly, the Court orders DeVaughn to show cause why his
24
leave to file without full prepayment of fees should not be revoked because he
25
misrepresented his litigation history under Rule 11, likely to avoid potential 28
26
U.S.C. § 1915(g) denial of leave under the “three-strikes” bar. The Court sets forth
27
its reasoning below. DeVaughn has until July 15 to respond to this Order. The
28
Court will deem a failure to do so as agreement with the Court’s reasoning and
imposition of sanctions as described below. See C.D.Cal. Local Civ. R. 7-12.
1
BACKGROUND
2
3
4
5
I.
DeVaughn’s Litigation History (As Described in the Complaint)
The Complaint, filed on September 3, 2010, was lodged with the Court on June
6
15, 2010 with DeVaughn’s signature dated June 6, 2010. [Dkts. 1-1 and 5.]
7
Although DeVaughn is not required to use a particular form to file a civil rights
8
complaint, he opted to use the CV-66 form made available in this District. Section
9
A of that form—titled “PREVIOUS LAWSUITS”—asks a prisoner-plaintiff to state
10
how many federal lawsuits he has pursued while a prisoner, and to describe each
11
lawsuit. [Dkt. 5 at 1.] DeVaughn answered that he brought “4 (four)” lawsuits:
12
Case No. EDCV-08-1515-ASH (SH), where the court denied leave to
13
proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee because it did not submit
14
the trust fund authorization form;
15
Case No. 5:04-CV-00677-DSF (SH), where the court dismissed his suit on
16
April 12, 2007 after “[t]he defendants falsely rearrested this petitioner
17
October 31, 2006 to impede the civil action.”
18
Two cases filed in South Carolina that DeVaughn does not have the case
19
number to, the first of which resulted in a defaulting defendant and the
20
second of which was dismissed at the summary judgment stage. He says
21
neither was dismissed as frivolous.
22
[Id.] The Complaint has no attachments listing additional court cases.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
II.
DeVaughn’s Litigation History (Based on the Court’s Review)
A search of the Court’s federal electronic records reveals a far more litigious past
2
3
than DeVaughn disclosed in the Complaint.1 According to the PACER docket
4
entries, DeVaughn has filed approximately forty-six civil lawsuits and forty-three
5
appeals from 1992 through 2015. [Attachments 1&2.]2 Because of that litigation
6
history, DeVaughn has been prohibited from “filing any further § 2255 motions”
7
“[o]n his own behalf,” barred from further filings in a closed Ninth Circuit case, and
8
has been described as having a “penchant for filing frivolous pleadings.” [Michael
9
O. DeVaughn v. Ray, Case No. 4:99-3405-17BF, Report & Recommendation, Dkt. 6
10
at 4-5 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 1999) (describing prior litigation history).]
11
DISCUSSION
12
13
14
I. DeVaughn’s Leave to File Without Prepayment of the Full Filing Fee
15
Should Be Revoked Because He Violated Rule 11 by Misrepresenting His
16
Litigation History.
17
18
A. DeVaughn’s Conduct Is Rule 11 Sanctionable.
19
Under Rule 11, when a party (including a pro se plaintiff) signs a pleading, he
20
represents that, “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
United States ex. rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971
F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.1992) (a court “may take notice of proceedings in other
courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings
have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (cited in United States v. Aguilar, 782
F.3d 1101, 1103 n.1 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2015)).
2
27
28
A few of these may be attributable to other people, and a few were filed after
DeVaughn signed and filed the Complaint. Excluding those suits from
consideration does not change the Court’s analysis.
3
1
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, . . . the allegations and
2
other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
3
are likely to have evidentiary support[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3); see Warren v.
4
Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (holding that Rule 11
5
applies to pro se litigants just as it applies to represented parties); e.g., Simpson v.
6
Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). “Rule 11 provides for the
7
imposition of sanctions when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without
8
factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Simpson, 77 F.3d at
9
1177.3 And “while we give pro se litigants special consideration, ‘pro se filings do
10
not serve as an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass
11
others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already over-
12
loaded court dockets.’” Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting
13
Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988)).
The Court believes that DeVaughn’s factual contention that he had brought only
14
15
four prior federal lawsuits was a knowing misrepresentation on June 6, 2010—the
16
date that DeVaughn signed the Complaint. Misrepresenting litigation history is
17
Rule 11 sanctionable. E.g., Warren, 29 F.3d at 1389 (remanding to the district court
18
to determine whether a pro se litigant’s alleged false statement that “he had never
19
filed a federal or state lawsuit concerning his alleged assault by the [prison cook]”
20
was Rule 11 sanctionable); Hadley v. Homme, No. 1:10-CV-00870-LJO, 2011 WL
21
2493761 at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2011) (finding plaintiff’s failure to list ten
22
additional lawsuits as sanctionable). And here, that DeVaughn lied about his prior
23
lawsuits seems nearly irrefutable; by the time he signed the Complaint, he had
24
already filed forty district court cases. [Attachment 1.]
25
26
27
28
3
“Although Rule 11 applies to pro se plaintiffs, the court must take into account a
plaintiff’s pro se status when it determines whether the filing was reasonable.”
Warren, 29 F.3d at 1390.
4
1
There is also significant evidence to suggest that DeVaughn’s answer was made
2
in bad faith and knowingly false. First, the form expressly requested that he list the
3
number of prior federal lawsuits, so the magnitude of the difference between what
4
the Court believes to be the actual number (40) and the number he listed (4) itself
5
provides some evidence that DeVaughn lied. Second, the form explained that “[i]f
6
there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on an attached piece
7
of paper using the same outline.” [Compl. at 1.] Third, and perhaps most
8
persuasively, DeVaughn had been previously denied leave to file without
9
prepayment of the full filing fee because he did “not state[] all of his prior civil
10
rights lawsuits in Section A, including any such lawsuits filed in other federal
11
district courts.” [Michael O. DeVaughn v. D.J. Mannion et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-
12
1515 (SH), Dkt. 2 at 1 (C.D.Cal Nov. 6, 2008).] That order provides strong
13
evidence that DeVaughn was aware of the form’s requirement that he describe all
14
prior lawsuits, and knowingly disregarded it here.
15
Based on the foregoing, the Court intends to recommend that the District Judge
16
find that DeVaughn committed a Rule 11 sanctionable act based on his signature on
17
the Complaint including a grossly inaccurate statement regarding his litigation
18
history.
19
20
21
22
B. Revoking DeVaughn’s Leave to File Without Prepayment of the Full
Filing Fee is an Appropriate Sanction.
Assuming that the Court determines a Rule 11 violation occurred, its analysis
23
then turns to an appropriate sanction. Rule 11 requires that “[a] sanction imposed
24
… be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
11(c)(4), although “[t]he district court has wide discretion in determining the
26
appropriate sanction for a Rule 11 violation.” Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc.,
27
836 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 1987).
28
5
“IFP litigants, proceeding at the expense of taxpayers, need to be deterred from
1
2
filing frivolous lawsuits as much as litigants who can afford to pay their own fees
3
and costs.” Warren, 29 F.3d at 1390. In particular, this type of failure—omitting
4
lawsuits to evade a potential “three-strikes” bar—“interferes with the Court’s efforts
5
to conserve judicial resources by preventing the proliferation of vexatious
6
litigation.” Hadley, 2011 WL 2493761 at *3.
Here, because the Court has found DeVaughn to be indigent, monetary sanctions
7
8
would be inappropriate and ineffective. Thus, the Court must look to nonmonetary
9
sanctions. At least one other California district court has held that dismissal without
10
prejudice was an appropriate sanction for a prisoner who misrepresented his prior
11
litigation history in his complaint to conceal his “three-strikes” status. E.g., id. This
12
Court has determined that, though dismissal would be an appropriate sanction, it
13
need not go so far here. Instead, the Court intends to recommend that DeVaughn’s
14
leave to continue this action without prepayment of the full filing fee in this action
15
be revoked and that he must pay the entire filing fee within thirty days if he wishes
16
to continue prosecuting this case. This proposed sanction is appropriate because the
17
case remains in an early posture (even though five years has elapsed) and because
18
the fraudulently provided information is typically relied upon by the court to
19
determine whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars a prisoner-plaintiff from proceeding
20
without paying the full filing fee. See infra at Part II. This sanction would
21
hopefully deter DeVaughn from misrepresenting his prior litigation history if he
22
files additional lawsuits in the future.
23
24
25
II.
Potential Applicability of the Three-Strikes Provision of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
26
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), prisoners who have filed three lawsuits that were
27
“malicious, frivolous, or failed to state a claim” may not proceed without paying the
28
full filing fee initially unless they are “in imminent danger of serious physical
6
1
injury.” Given the Court’s proposed Rule 11 sanction, the Court need not consider
2
whether DeVaughn would have been barred by section 1915(g). Nonetheless, in the
3
event that the Court finds that Rule 11 was not violated or that a different sanction is
4
appropriate, it intends to consider whether it may apply the “three-strikes” rule here.
5
If that occurs, the Court will set forth in a separate show cause order any basis for its
6
potential application of section 1915(g) and will give DeVaughn a reasonable
7
opportunity to respond.
8
9
CONCLUSION
10
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that DeVaughn file a response to
11
this Order to Show Cause on or before July 15, 2015 explaining why this Court
12
should not recommend that DeVaughn be required to pay the full filing fee
13
immediately or face dismissal.
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.
15
16
17
DATED: June 15, 2015
__________________________________
GAIL J. STANDISH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?