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)

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 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

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?