Sconiers v. Judicial Council of CA, et al.

Filing 54

ORDER to STRIKE Papers Filed on October 27, 2011 52 & 53 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/28/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
JANETTA SCONIERS,

CASE NO. CV F 11-0113 LJO SMS

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO STRIKE PAPERS FILED ON
OCTOBER 27, 2011
(Docs. 52, 53.)

13
vs.
14
15
16
17

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/

18

On January 21, 2011, plaintiff Janetta Sconiers (“plaintiff”) filed a 569-page complaint

19

purporting to name as defendants numerous judicial, law enforcement and other governmental officials.

20

Since filing her complaint, plaintiff has plagued this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with

21

numerous frivolous filings, the latest of which were papers filed on October 27, 2011 and which appear

22

to take exception with this Court’s orders to address plaintiff’s frivolous filings.

23

This Court surmises that plaintiff brought this action in absence of good faith and that plaintiff

24

seeks to exploit the court system solely to vex defendants and this overburdened Court. The test for

25

maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good faith of the

26

applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795

27

F.2d 964, 968, n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 1986) (court has

28

inherent power to dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of
1

1

good faith or malice also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact

2

or false statements made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th

3

Cir. 1984).

4

As such, this Court STRIKES plaintiff’s papers filed on October 27, 2011 and ADMONISHES

5

plaintiff that this Court will strike further filings pending the November 16, 2011 hearing to show cause

6

why this action should not be dismissed.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

October 28, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2