McDaniel v. USA, et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/29/2017 ORDERING The court DECLARES plaintiff Tanya Grace McDaniel to be a "Vexatious Litigant" asdefined under California law; Tanya Grace McDaniel shall not initiate any further acti on as a self-represented plaintiff in this court unless the pleadings initiating the action, which must be submitted in hard copy, are accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury that explains why plaintiff believes she has meritorious clai ms; The Clerk shall not accept any action submitted by Tanya Grace McDaniel as a self-represented plaintiff unless it is accompanied by the required declaration and copy of the instant order; The court INSTRUCTS the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of this Order to the state Judicial Council. (cc: Judicial Council)(Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL, 12 13 No. 2:15-cv-2627-KJM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER 14 THE UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On June 16, 2017, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 18 recommendations and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 12. The court also 19 ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should not declare her a vexatious litigant, citing six 20 of plaintiff’s cases that this court has dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous within 21 the last two years. Id. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the order to show cause. ECF No. 14. 22 Although plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 15, the Ninth Circuit determined the 23 appeal was ineffective and held in abeyance the appellate proceedings until this court resolves the 24 pending order to show cause, ECF No. 18. The court resolves the pending matter here. 25 Eastern District Local Rule 151(b) adopts California’s “vexatious litigant” laws. 26 See L.R. 151(b) (adopting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 391–391.8). Those laws are “designed to curb 27 misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating 28 the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and 1 1 other litigants.” Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1169 (2011). As relevant here, the statute 2 defines “vexatious litigant” to mean a person who “[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year 3 period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other 4 than in a small claims court that have been [] finally determined adversely to the person . . .” Cal. 5 Civ. Proc. Code § 391(b)(1). If person is declared a vexatious litigant, the court may impose a 6 pre-filing order that limits a plaintiff’s ability to file any new case in propria persona. Cal. Civ. 7 Proc. Code § 391.7. If a plaintiff subject to a pre-filing order somehow files a new case in propria 8 persona without the presiding judge’s permission, the case may be dismissed. Id. A court’s 9 vexatious litigant declaration is also reported to the state Judicial Council, which maintains a list 10 of “vexatious litigants.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391.7(f); see also Vexatious Litigant List, 11 available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf (last viewed Aug. 29, 2017). 12 Here, as the magistrate judge first raised and a review of the court’s docket 13 confirms, plaintiff has filed numerous cases that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim 14 or as frivolous. See McDaniel v. United States Department of Justice, No. 2:15-cv-1664- JAM- 15 AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015); McDaniel v. United States of America, No. 2:15-cv-0937-MCE- 16 KJN-PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015); McDaniel v. The Secretariat, No. 2:15-cv-0828-GEB CKD- 17 PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015); McDaniel v. United States, No. 2:15-cv-1113-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. 18 Aug. 18, 2015); McDaniel v. Powell, No. 2:13-cv-2653 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2015). Each 19 of the five cases were brought within the last seven years, maintained in propria persona, and 20 finally determined against plaintiff. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391(b)(1). The court’s order 21 dismissing the complaint in this case adds a sixth case that fits the criteria under subsection 22 391(b)(1). See ECF No. 12. In her response, plaintiff does not dispute any of these findings, but 23 instead argues they do not support sanctions. ECF No. 14 at 4–5 (“Plaintiff has only been filing 24 lawsuits since Dec. 26, 2013-2017. Therefore, being only 3 ½ years does not even qualify for a 25 ruling of a vexatious litigant.”). Plaintiff’s argument that her lawsuits must span more than seven 26 years is contradicted by the plain language of the statute. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391(b)(1) 27 (covering a litigant who commences five litigations “[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year 28 period”). Thus, there is sufficient basis to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 2 1 2 3 4 5 After a review of plaintiff’s filings and previous cases, and careful consideration of the appropriate restrictions in light of plaintiff’s conduct, the court makes the following rulings: 1. The court DECLARES plaintiff Tanya Grace McDaniel to be a “vexatious litigant” as defined under California law. 2. The court ORDERS the following: 6 a. Plaintiff Tanya Grace McDaniel shall not initiate any further action as a self- 7 represented plaintiff in this court unless the pleadings initiating the action, 8 which must be submitted in hard copy, are accompanied by a declaration under 9 penalty of perjury that explains why plaintiff believes she has meritorious 10 claims. The declarations shall include a list of all previous actions plaintiff has 11 filed in this or any court, identifying named defendants and all claims made in 12 the previous actions. Plaintiff shall certify that the defendants named in the 13 proposed action have never been sued by plaintiff, or alternatively that any 14 claims against previously sued defendants are not related to previous actions. 15 The declaration shall also state that the claims are not frivolous or made in bad 16 faith, and that plaintiff has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts 17 and the investigation supporting his claim or claims. Finally, a copy of this 18 order shall be attached to any application; 19 b. The Clerk shall not accept any action submitted by plaintiff Tanya Grace 20 McDaniel as a self-represented plaintiff unless it is accompanied by the 21 required declaration and copy of the instant order; any incomplete filings shall 22 be returned to plaintiff without further action of the court; and 23 c. If plaintiff Tanya Grace McDaniel submits an action as a self-represented 24 plaintiff accompanied by the required declaration, the Clerk shall open the 25 matter as a miscellaneous case to be considered by the General Duty Judge of 26 this court. The judge will issue necessary orders after making a determination 27 whether the case is in fact related to a previous case filed by plaintiff, and 28 whether it is non-frivolous. 3 1 2 3 4 3. The court INSTRUCTS the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of this Order to the state Judicial Council. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 29, 2017. 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?