Wade v. Chao et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND DENIAL OF 2 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge William H. Orrick. The Clerk is directed not to accept Wades complaint for filing. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)

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
12

Case No. 17-mc-80148-WHO

v.
ELAINE CHAO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
COMPLAINT AND DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3

Plaintiff E.K. Wade seeks permission to file a complaint against Elaine Chao and a host of

13

current and former employees of the Department of Labor and other government officials. Dkt.

14

No. 1. Wade has filed many frivolous lawsuits in this Court (as well as in the Eastern District of

15

California) and is subject to pre-filing orders that require him to “seek leave from this Court before

16

filing any additional complaints against the Department of Labor, any of its employees, or against

17

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

18

stemming from his prior employment in the Office of Federal Programs Contract Compliance.”

19

Wade v. Gilliland, Case No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA, ECF No. 100 at 4; see also Wade v. United

20

States, Case No. 3:06- cv-02346-CRB, ECF No. 55 (requiring pre-filing review for complaints “in

21

connection with his disputes with the [Veterans Affairs] system”).

22

I have reviewed Wade’s latest complaint and his motion for a preliminary injunction and

23

find them to be repetitive of past filings in his string of dozens of lawsuits and attempted lawsuits

24

in this District and in the Eastern District of California. Wade has repeatedly attempted to sue

25

these officials and employees with respect to his termination in 2004/2005, his complaints of

26

being barred from and/or removed from federal buildings in 2004/2005, and his claims that these

27

officials and employees retaliated against him and failed to rehire him. He has also repeatedly

28

attempted (and had those attempts rejected by judges on this Court) to litigate negligence,

1

conspiracy, and infliction of emotional distress claims based on his being barred from and/or

2

removed from federal buildings; claims Wade believes are supported by documents released to

3

him in 2012 and 2015 under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). See, e.g., Wade v.

4

Chao, Case No. 3:17-mc-80141-WHA; Wade v. Chao, Case No. 3:17-mc-80094-WHA; Wade v.

5

Chao, Case No. 17-mc-80130-JST; Wade v. Perez, Case No. 3:17-cv-03830-EDL (transferred

6

from the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-2354 TLN DB PS); Wade v. Perez, Case

7

No. 3:16-mc-80221-WHA.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pursuant to the pre-filing review order applicable to Wade in Case No. 10-cv-00425-WHA,
I DENY Wade’s request to file this duplicative action and DENY his motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Clerk is directed not to accept Wade’s complaint for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2017

13
14
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

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