Wattson v. Altabateshospital.com

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE PRE-FILING ORDER Show Cause Response due by 6/21/2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

In re cases filed by

No. C 14-0803 CW

5

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY COURT
SHOULD NOT ISSUE
PRE-FILING ORDER

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

________________________________/
Between February 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014, Cyber Ebot Wattson

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
filed twenty-four cases in this District.

See attached Addendum

11
12

(listing the twenty-four cases filed by Mr. Wattson since February

13

21, 2014).

All of the cases were assigned to this judge for

14

appropriate action.

15

proceed in forma pauperis.

In each of these cases, Mr. Wattson seeks to

16
In light of this litigation history, the Court considers sua
17
18
19

sponte whether it is necessary and appropriate to impose a prefiling order on Mr. Wattson.

20

LEGAL STANDARDS

21

Federal courts have the inherent power “to regulate the

22

activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored

23
restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”

DeLong v.

24
25

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990).

One such

26

carefully tailored restriction is an order requiring a litigant to

27

seek permission from the court prior to filing any future suits.

28

Id. at 1146-47.

As noted by the Ninth Circuit, district courts

1

“bear an affirmative obligation to ensure that judicial resources

2

are not needlessly squandered on repeated attempts by litigants to

3

misuse the courts.”

4

O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F. 614, 618 (9th Cir.

1990).

Nonetheless, pre-filing review orders should rarely be

used.

Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990).

5
A

6
7

pre-filing order “cannot issue merely upon a showing of

8

litigiousness.”

9

numerous, but also be patently without merit.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Id.

The plaintiff's claims must not only be
Id.

The Ninth Circuit has established four guidelines “to
maintain this delicate balance between broad court access and

12
prevention of court abuse.”

O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.

Before

13
14

a court enters a vexatious litigant order: (1) the plaintiff must

15

be given adequate notice to oppose entry of the order; (2) the

16

court must present an adequate record by listing the case filings

17

that support its order; 3) the court must make substantive

18
findings of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) the order must be
19
20
21

narrowly tailored to remedy only the plaintiff's particular
abuses.

Id.;

22
23
24

DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147-49.
DISCUSSION

I.

Notice
Before a pre-filing order may be entered, due process

25
requires that the litigant be provided with notice and an
26
27

opportunity to oppose the order.

De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147.

28

2

1

Accordingly, the Court is issuing this Order to Show Cause prior

2

to entering any order.

3

II.

4

Adequate record for review
The district court must create a record for review which

5
includes a listing of all the cases and motions that led it to
6
7

conclude that a pre-filing order was needed.

The record must at

8

least show, in some manner, that the litigant's activities were

9

numerous or abusive.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

See id.

The Court has attached an Addendum to this order.

The

Addendum consists a report from ECF, the Court's online docket

12
system that lists the twenty-four cases that have led the Court to
13
14
15
16
17

conclude that a pre-filing order may be necessary.
III. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment
The district court must make substantive findings as to the
frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions.

It must

18
find the litigant's claims frivolous after looking at both the
19
20
21
22
23
24

number and content of the filings, or, alternatively, find that
the claims show a pattern of harassment.

See id. at 1148.

Looking at the large number of filings and their content, the
Court determines that Mr. Wattson’s claims are frivolous.

As

noted above, Mr. Wattson has filed twenty-four cases in an eight-

25
week period.

In each case Mr. Wattson filed an application to

26
27
28

proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court granted the application in

each case, but dismissed all of the complaints for failure to

3

1

state a claim.

In addition, the Court found that Mr. Wattson’s

2

complaints lack an arguable basis in law, and an arguable basis in

3

fact.

4

See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.

1999) (complaint is frivolous and subject to dismissal if it is

5
incomprehensible and lacks an arguable basis in law or fact).
6
7

Thus, the Court made a substantive finding as to the frivolous

8

nature of Mr. Wattson’s actions.

9

4.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Breadth of Order
The district court must narrowly tailor the proposed pre-

filing order to “closely fit the specific vice encountered.”

12
Delong, 912 F.2d at 1148.

An order preventing a litigant from

13
14

filing any further actions without leave of court, for example,

15

ordinarily is overly broad and cannot stand.

16

F.2d at 470-71.

17

See id.; Moy, 906

When the Ninth Circuit held in Moy that an order preventing a

18
vexatious litigant from filing any actions without leave of the
19
20

court was overly broad, the court specifically noted, “There is no

21

evidence on this record that Moy has a general history of

22

litigious filing.”

23

where the Ninth Circuit held that a similar order was overly

24

Moy, 906 F.2d at 471.

Similarly, in DeLong,

broad, the litigant's history involved repeated filings related to

25
a specific dispute with particular defendants.

DeLong, 912 F.2d

26
27
28

at 1145-46.

On that record, the district court likewise could not

have concluded that DeLong had a general history of litigious

4

1

filing.

Here, by contrast, Mr. Wattson has filed twenty-four

2

cases containing often incomprehensible allegations related to his

3

assertion that he is not a human but a member of the “Cybernetic

4

Controller Cop Operatives.”

5
The “specific vice” encountered by the Court is the volume of
6
7

incomprehensible complaints filed by Mr. Wattson, without

8

cognizable claims for relief.

9

Mr. Wattson’s identity as a robot or a “cybernet citizen”, sexual

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Although recurring themes, such as

slavery, abduction and torture, the misidentification of Mr.
Wattson as either Aaren or Darren Striplin and hijacked airplanes

12
dominate Mr. Wattson’s filings, a pre-filing order cannot be
13
14

limited to specific subject matter, because the problem of

15

incomprehensibility is not tied to any particular subject matter.

16

On this record, the Court concludes that Mr. Wattson has a general

17

history of litigious filing.

This history justifies a general

18
order requiring pre-filing review by this Court of any action
19
20

filed by Mr. Wattson.

21

Unless Mr. Wattson shows cause why it should not be issued,

22

the Court intends to issue the following pre-filing order, which

23

will be applicable to any action Mr. Wattson files in this Court:

24

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall not

25
accept for filing any further complaints filed by Cyber Ebot
26
27
28

Wattson, until that complaint has first been reviewed by the
Court.

A two-stage pre-filing review will be conducted before

5

1
2

leave is granted to file the action.

First, if the complaint is

related to any of the following subject matters:

3

(1)

4

(2)
(3)
(4)

5
6

(5)

7

Mr. Wattson’s identity as a robot or a “cybernet
citizen;”
sexual slavery;
abduction and torture;
the misidentification of Mr. Wattson as either Aaren
or Darren Striplin; or
hijacked airplanes

8

it will not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims that are

9

not based on merely conclusory allegations.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Second, no other

complaints filed by Mr. Wattson will be filed unless they contain
intelligible factual allegations and claims for relief.

All cases

12
filed by Mr. Wattson shall be forwarded to the undersigned for
13
14
15
16
17

pre-filing review.”
Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Mr. Wattson may
file a statement showing cause why this order should not be
issued.

If he fails to file the statement or if he fails to show

18
cause why the order should not be filed, the order shall be
19
20
21
22

entered and it shall be applicable in all future actions filed by
Mr. Wattson.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: 5/22/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28

6