Wade v. Chao et al

Filing 41

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 7, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

E.K. WADE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-MC-80085
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

v.
ELAINE CHAO, Former Secretary of Labor,
et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff E.K. Wade is a vexatious litigant who has, since 2006, been subject to a pre-filing

14

order requiring him to get this Court's permission “before filing any additional complaints against

15

the Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System, any of its employees, or against the

16

United States or any other government official in connection with his disputes with the VA

17

system.” Wade v. United States, Case No. 3:06-cv-02346-CRB, Docket No. 55 (Dec. 14, 2006)

18

(“Prefiling Order”).

19

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff Wade filed this action in the Eastern District of California.

20

Wade v. Chao, Case No. 2:17-cv-0004-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2017). Because the events

21

giving rise to the complaint took place in this Northern District of California, the Eastern District

22

transferred the case to this district by order dated July 5, 2017. ECF No. 39.

23

Plaintiff Wade did not seek permission of this Court before filing this case, even though he

24

knew when he filed the case in the Eastern District that it would be transferred to this district. See

25

Transfer Order at 2. A review of the current complaint discloses that Plaintiff is suing “the United

26

States or any other government official in connection with his disputes with the VA system.” See

27

ECF No. 3 at 12-13 (alleging that certain defendants conspired to “physically detain Plaintiff and

28

have security to physically escort him to and from his conduction of personal business with such

1

entities as the Veterans Affairs [and] Disabled American Veterans”); 45 (same); 67 (copy of

2

Plaintiff’s FOIA request to the Department of Veterans Affairs); 70 (response from the

3

Department of Veterans Affairs); 72 (request for release of information from Department of

4

Veterans Affairs). Therefore, pursuant to the Prefiling Order, he was required to obtain

5

permission of this Court before filing his complaint.

6

Because this case has been transferred to this District by the Eastern District of California,

7

the Court will direct the clerk to accept the case for filing so as to give effect to the Eastern

8

District’s lawful order of transfer. However, pursuant to the Prefiling Order, Plaintiff’s complaint

9

is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may seek to refile his complaint after he

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

has obtained the permission of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 7, 2017
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2