Sconiers v. Judicial Council of CA, et al.

Filing 84

AMENDED ORDER To Adopt Findings And Recommendations Recommending That Complaint Be Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Court Rules (Docs. 51 and 71 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4

JANETTA SCONIERS,

5
6
7

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS

Plaintiff,

AMENDED ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT COMPLAINT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH COURT RULES

v.
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
et al.,

8
Defendants.
9

(Docs. 51 and 71)
/

10
11
On December 13, 2011, this Court entered an order that, among other things, declared
12
Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and ordered that all subsequent complaints brought by Plaintiff be
13
lodged and screened prior to filing. Plaintiff responded by filing frivolous and malicious motions
14
in six long-closed cases. Accordingly, the Court hereby amends its order nunc pro tunc.
15
AMENDED ORDER
16
On October 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder ordered Plaintiff Janetta L.
17
Sconiers and counsel Ralston L. Courtney to appear at a hearing on November 16, 2011, to show
18
cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11,
19
and sanctions imposed. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel appeared. On November 23, 2011, the
20
Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations recommending that this case be
21
dismissed, counsel be fined and reprimanded, and Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant
22
subject to pre-filing review.
23
On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections and exhibits totaling 295 pages.
24
Plaintiff’s objections did not address the application of F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11 to the complaint in
25
this matter.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
27
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
28
-1-

1

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed
November 23, 2011, are adopted in full. Specifically,

4

1.

This matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with
F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11.

2.

Plaintiff’s attorney, Ralston Courtney, is hereby sanctioned pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 11 for failing to conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry
regarding (a) Plaintiff’s motives for proceeding with the complaint; (b) the
legal sufficiency of the asserted claims; and (c) the factual sufficiency of
the asserted claims. As penalty, Courtney is ordered to pay $5000.00 to
the Court’s Nonappropriated Fund.

3.

Courtney is hereby reprimanded for his conduct in this matter, which
degraded and impugned the integrity of this Court and interfered with its
administration of justice.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order and the
underlying Findings and Recommendations to Office of Chief Trial
Counsel/Intake, The State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los
Angeles, California 90015-2299.

5.
15

Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers is hereby sanctioned pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 11
for her failure to conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry regarding the
legal and factual sufficiency of her claims, and for her determination to file
repetitive claims intended to harass the individuals named as defendants.

16

a.

Plaintiff is declared to be a vexatious litigant.

17

b.

On or after the date of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee in
all actions initiated in propria persona or by legal counsel on her
behalf.

c.

Upon presentation by Plaintiff or any attorney acting on her behalf
on or after the date of the Court’s order of any complaint, motion,
or other document for filing, the Clerk of Court shall lodge the
complaint, motion, or document pending its review by the Chief
District Judge or such judge as he or she may designate to ensure
that the complaint, motion, or document is neither frivolous nor
malicious and that it states claims cognizable in this Court. No
complaint, motion, or document shall be filed prior to such
screening and approval.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28

Dated:
b9ed48

January 20, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-