Moye v. Baca et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 30, 2009. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/30/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MALINKA TACUMA WADE MOYE, Plaintiff, v. LYDIA DIANNE BACA and RACHALE YOUNG, Defendants. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-03897 WHA

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

On August 25, 2009, plaintiff Malinka Moye filed seven actions which were related before the undersigned, including the above-captioned action. The seven actions are as follows: C-09-3892 WHA C-09-3895 WHA C-09-3896 WHA C-09-3897 WHA C-09-3899 WHA C-09-3900 WHA C-09-3902 WHA Malinka Moye v. City and County of San Francisco Malinka Moye v. Ratana Jiraittewanna Malinka Moye v. Red Oak Realty Malinka Moye v. Lydia Dianne Baca and Rachale Young Malinka Moye v. Myriad Ventures Inc. d/b/a Bay Car Stereo Malinka Moye v. La Donna Rewa Duncan Malinka Moye v. Lydia Dianne Baca

Plaintiff's complaints were barely comprehensible and clearly frivolous. To the extent they were understandable, they alleged an illegal transfer of an estate, false imprisonment, robbery, attempted murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder, all aided by the San Francisco courts, San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco Sheriff Department and Office of the Public Defender, among others. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why each action should not be dismissed. Although he was given two chances, he did not file responsive answers. The

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

actions were subsequently dismissed without leave to amend on November 16, 2009, and judgments were entered. Plaintiff has nevertheless continued to file incomprehensible and meritless motions, declarations and other filings in these actions. When they are denied, he files more motions repeating the same frivolous claims. In addition to the seven actions before the undersigned, plaintiff has filed at least 12 other actions in this district since April 2008, including: C-09-3893 MHP C-09-3898 EDL C-09-3901 JCS C-08-2051 PJH C-08-2053 WHA C-08-2054 JL C-08-2055 MEJ C-08-2056 PJH C-08-2057 VRW C-08-2125 WHA C-08-2124 SBA C-08-2126 SBA Malinka Moye v. Derrick Collins, Vince Collins, et al. Malinka Moye v. Big Nates Barbeque, et al. Malinka Moye v. Fidelity National Title Co. Malinka Moye v. Vince Collins, et al. Malinka Moye v. La Donna Rewa Duncan Malinka Moye v. Nate Thurmond Malinka Moye v. Jack Chew Malinka Moye v. Ratana Jiraittewanna Malinka Moye v. Myriad Ventures Inc. d/b/a Bay Car Stereo Malinka Moye v. Linda Brewer Stockdale Malinka Moye v. Lydia Baca Malinka Moye v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

In each of these actions, plaintiff has sought to proceed in forma pauperis. In many, his application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and the complaint was dismissed. The "facts" alleged in the complaints in each of the actions listed above have been no more than a paragraph consisting of short, incomplete and incomprehensible sentences. Additionally, the complaints fail to provide enough information to determine if any basis for federal jurisdiction exists. Most of these actions alleged substantially similar or the same baseless claims as in the seven actions filed on August 25 before the undersigned. The e-filing docket of the San Francisco Superior Court lists plaintiff as a party in approximately 80 actions of various types, filed beginning in March 2002. Most of these actions were filed by plaintiff, and many of the defendants have the same names as the defendants in the actions filed in this district. On August 11, 2006, in one of these actions, Malinka Moye v. Lydia Baca, Case No. CGC-06-450461, plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391.1, 391.3 and 391.7(a), and ordered not to file any new litigation in any California state court without first obtaining leave of court. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of vexatious litigants. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the power of 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), courts may restrict litigants with abusive and lengthy histories from further filing. A court may restrict such litigants' future filing of actions or papers provided that it (1) gives the litigant an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered, (2) creates an adequate record for review, (3) makes substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions and (4) drafts a sufficiently tailored order. Id. at 1145­48. Accordingly, plaintiff Malinka Moye must appear before this Court on DECEMBER 17, 2009 AT 8:00 A.M., to respond to the following order to show cause. Additionally, plaintiff must file a written response no later than DECEMBER 10, 2009, AT NOON addressing why plaintiff should not be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further papers in the seven actions before the undersigned that began on August 25, or in new actions in the Northern District of California against the same defendants or alleging substantially similar claims, without pre-filing review.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3