Moye v. Restaurant Depot

Filing 7

PRE-FILING ORDER REFUSING PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT BY VEXATIOUS LITIGANT [re 5 Amended Complaint filed by Malinka Tacuma Wade Moye]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/2/2019. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MALINKA TACUMA WADE MOYE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 19-80004 WHA

v.
RESTAURANT DEPOT, JOHN DOES
(1–80), and CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO/ALAIN PINEL

PRE-FILING ORDER
REFUSING PROPOSED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
BY VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Defendants.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Pro se plaintiff Malinka Moye, a vexatious litigant, submitted an amended complaint

19

alleging employment discrimination. For the following reasons, the amended complaint will

20

not be accepted for filing.

21
22

STATEMENT
In 2009, after filing two dozen incomprehensible federal actions originating from a

23

dispute over San Francisco properties once owned by Moye’s relative, the undersigned judge

24

ordered plaintiff Moye to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant in this

25

district. Moye responded with more of the same incomprehensible and frivolous claims, so he

26

was declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further civil complaints in the Northern

27

District of California without first obtaining a pre-filing review from the undersigned judge.

28

The order barred Moye from filing another civil complaint with “substantially the same

1

allegations regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer, embezzlement or robbery of real estate

2

named the Hurdle Estate; plaintiff’s alleged false imprisonment; defendants’ alleged robbery,

3

assault or attempted murder of plaintiff; conspiracy to murder plaintiff; or illegal concealment

4

of a child” (Case No. C 09-03892 WHA, Dkt. No. 30).

5

Plaintiff Moye now alleges employment discrimination in failure to hire, failure to

6

promote, and other acts described in his amended complaint. His statements of allegations are

7

disjointed and incomplete. He initially alleges employment discrimination via hate crime and

8

assault and a “set up for false imprisonment” by co-workers at defendant Restaurant Depot.

9

He alleges “realty fraud against Alain Pinel through co-workers” and he mentions “home
illegally sold.” He alleges illegal taking of money out of his paycheck for garnishment and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

states he is being threatened by “Mr. Back Pay, illegal court ordered debt.” Moye attached

12

an August 2018 charge-of-discrimination form that he filed with the Equal Employment

13

Opportunity Commission where he alleged race, color, retaliation, age and religious

14

discrimination. He stated that coworkers that “were in jail with (sic) got into my personal

15

business, and they decided to garnish my paycheck illegally.” He stated that he was threatened

16

with violence, that coworkers “tried to set up pallets to fall on me in freezer.” The EEOC

17

responded within two days that it was closing Moye’s case.

18

Most of Moye’s 23-page exhibits do not relate to this amended complaint.

19

Moye included letters he wrote to the FBI dated 2016. He submitted a paystub in his exhibits

20

that shows he owes back taxes and child support, both of which are being garnished from his

21

wages. He sees these deductions as illegal. He included a 2004 letter from the U.S. Department

22

of Education, Office of Civil Rights, denying him relief from his student loans. He included an

23

undated San Francisco Police Department Incident Report (No. 060336221) with an incoherent

24

discussion of a 2006 conversation between a landlord, a police officer and Moye. He included a

25

photograph of an unnamed person and undated handwritten notes telling him to stay away from

26

a building.

27
28

Exhibits attached to Moye’s complaint also include letters from Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) dated November 2018 where it closed its files related to his
2

1

2018 inquiries against defendants from the 2009 pre-‘vexatious litigant’ cases: Old Republic

2

Title, Co., Red Oak Realty, Stockdale, et al., Baca, et al. These DFEH letters stated it lacked

3

“jurisdiction to proceed because prima facie has not been met.”

4

ANALYSIS

5

Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of vexatious litigants.

6

Under Section 1651(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, courts may restrict litigants with

7

abusive and lengthy histories from further filing. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147

8

(9th Cir. 1990).

9

Moye’s amended complaint names his former employer, Restaurant Depot, as a
defendant but inexplicably adds in defendants from his old allegations that are barred by the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pre-filing order, the City of San Francisco/Alain Pinel (sic). As a supposed employment

12

discrimination complaint against an employer, if Moye had clearly stated a claim, that claim

13

may fall outside the bounds of the pre-filing order. However, Moye’s initial and his amended

14

complaints are both incomprehensible allegations of old accusations barred by the pre-filing

15

order and current allegations that are nonsensical and do not pertain to employment.

16

The amended complaint includes an allegation of “Refusing to give up home, freedom, beliefs

17

against organized crime.”

18
19

CONCLUSION
The subject matter of the new complaint is so incomprehensible that it cannot be said

20

with clarity to avoid the pre-filing bar. There is too great a risk that plaintiff, if the complaint is

21

allowed, will slip in the same old story again. Consequently, this complaint will not be

22

accepted for filing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: April 2, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3