Elliott v. Ruselin

Filing 2

ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT NOT BARRED BY PRE-FILING REVIEW ORDER. These claims are not "subject of" or "related to" the claims in the Elliott v. Marsh action. Mr. Elliots current claims are therefore not barred by the pre-filing review order and he does not need leave of the Court to file it. His complaint is FILED. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/03/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

VANCE S. ELLIOTT,

Case No. 14-mc-80243-WHO

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

DANIELLE RUSELIN,
Defendant.

ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT NOT
BARRED BY PRE-FILING REVIEW
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 1

8
9
10

On February 15, 2006, plaintiff Vance Elliot was adjudged a vexatious litigant subject to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

pre-filing review. Elliott v. Marsh, (N.D. Cal. February 15, 2006) (order adjudging plaintiff a

12

vexatious litigant subject to pre-filing review). The order required Mr. Elliot to “obtain leave of

13

court before filing any motion, complaint or other papers involving any claims that have been the

14

subject of or are related to claims in this action.” Id. In Elliott v. Marsh, Mr. Elliot alleged that

15

John Marsh posed as a minister of the First Unitarian Universalist Church and used the collection

16

dish to pilfer more than $100,000. See Elliott v. Marsh, (N.D. Cal. October 6, 2004) (order to

17

show cause why Mr. Vance should not be declared vexatious litigant). Mr. Elliot also alleged that

18

Mr. Marsh assaulted “the Intern Rali” and conspired to murder an unnamed third party. Id.

19

On August 26, 2014, Mr. Elliot filed a “Complaint of Slander” with this Court, naming

20

Danielle Roselin as defendant. Mr. Eliott appears to allege that Ms. Roselin, a psychiatrist

21

employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, slandered him by describing him as a

22

schizophrenic. These claims are not “subject of” or “related to” the claims in the Elliott v. Marsh

23

action. Mr. Elliot’s current claims are therefore not barred by the pre-filing review order and he

24

does not need leave of the Court to file it. His complaint is FILED.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 3, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge