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)

Download PDF
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

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?