Wright v. Stretch et al

Filing 25

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE PRE-FILING ORDER. (Certificate of Service Attached) Show Cause Response due by 6/9/2016. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/10/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT,

7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

No. C 16-505 CW

In re cases filed by

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

Plaintiff.
________________________________/

Since January 2011, Plaintiff has filed fourteen cases in
federal district court, including ten in the Northern District of
California, and nine federal appeals.

See Addendum.

In most of

these cases, including all cases filed in the Northern District
of California, Wright sought to proceed in forma pauperis.

In

light of this litigation history, the Court considers sua sponte
whether it is necessary and appropriate to impose a pre-filing
order on Plaintiff.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal courts have the inherent power “to regulate the
activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”
Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990).

DeLong v.

As noted by the

Ninth Circuit, district courts “bear an affirmative obligation to
ensure that judicial resources are not needlessly squandered on
repeated attempts by litigants to misuse the courts.”
v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990).
filing review orders should rarely be used.
States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990).

O'Loughlin

Nonetheless, preMoy v. United
A pre-filing order

1

“cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness.”

Id.

2

plaintiff's claims must not only be numerous, but also be

3

patently without merit.

The

Id.

The Ninth Circuit has established four guidelines “to

4
5

maintain this delicate balance between broad court access and

6

prevention of court abuse.”

7

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

8

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

9

court must present an adequate record by listing the case filings

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

Before

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

findings of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) the order must

12

be narrowly tailored to remedy only the plaintiff's particular

13

abuses.

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

14
15
16

I.

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

17

requires that the litigant be provided with notice and an

18

opportunity to oppose the order.

19

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

20

to entering any pre-filing order.

21
22

II.

De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147.

Adequate Record for Review

The district court must create a record for review which

23

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

24

conclude that a pre-filing order was needed.

25

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

26

numerous or abusive.

27
28

The record must at

See id.

The Court has attached an Addendum to this order that lists
all the cases Plaintiff has filed in the federal courts that have
2

1

led the Court to conclude that a pre-filing order may be

2

necessary.

3
4

The filings are numerous.

III. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment
The district court must make substantive findings as to the

5

frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions.

6

find the litigant's claims frivolous after looking at both the

7

number and content of the filings, or, alternatively, find that

8

the claims show a pattern of harassment.

9

It must

See id. at 1148.

Here, Plaintiff's claims are frivolous.

Generally, courts

have dismissed Plaintiff's complaints as frivolous or failing to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), by granting a motion

12

to dismiss in favor of the defendants, or for failure to

13

prosecute following a denial of in forma pauperis status.

14

have also cited failure to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

8 and lack of federal jurisdiction.

16

courts have granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend, only to

17

conclude later that Plaintiff did not correct the problems in an

18

amended complaint.

19

Northern District of California survived the motion to dismiss

20

stage.

21

Courts

Indeed, in some cases,

None of Plaintiff's complaints filed in the

Because so many courts have found Plaintiff's claims

22

frivolous, this Court finds that Plaintiff's actions are

23

frivolous overall.

24
25

IV.

Breadth of Order

The district court must narrowly tailor the proposed pre-

26

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

27

DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148.

28

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

An order preventing a litigant from

3

1

ordinarily is overly broad and cannot stand.

2

F.2d at 470-71.

3

See id.; Moy, 906

When the Ninth Circuit held in Moy that an order preventing

4

a vexatious litigant from filing any actions without leave of the

5

court was overly broad, the court specifically noted, “There is

6

no evidence on this record that Moy has a general history of

7

litigious filing.”

8

where the Ninth Circuit held that a similar order was overly

9

broad, the litigant's history involved repeated filings related

Moy, 906 F.2d at 471.

Similarly, in DeLong,

to a specific dispute with particular defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

F.2d at 1145-46.

12

could not have concluded that DeLong had a general history of

13

litigious filing.

14

DeLong, 912

On that record, the district court likewise

Here, by contrast, Plaintiff has filed cases against many

15

different Defendants, including governmental actors, governmental

16

entities, businesses, universities and law firms, alleging

17

different types of claims, including state law tort claims, state

18

law contract claims, constitutional claims and petitions for

19

writs of mandamus.

20

First, Plaintiff frequently alleges that various actors owe him

21

some sort of duty under, for example, California Business and

22

Professions Code section 6068 or general fiduciary duty law.

23

Second, Plaintiff invokes the Federal Tort Claims Act frequently

24

and attaches "claim letters" to his Complaints.

25

frequently refers to previously-filed cases listed in the

26

Addendum, as well as state court cases, his bankruptcy, claims

27

against former employers, and claims against the University of

28

Chicago, where he was allegedly previously enrolled.

However, there are some common threads.

4

Third, Plaintiff

Fourth,

1

Plaintiff often seeks to compel Defendants to answer questions,

2

perform some investigation or consider a policy proposal,

3

sometimes by requesting a writ of mandamus.

4

filed lawsuits whose claims relate to obstructing his legal

5

process.

6

understanding that his hardships are the result of several bodies

7

conspiring "as some sort of unbeknownst-to-Plaintiff governmental

8

and legal training."

9

Fifth, Plaintiff has

Sixth, Plaintiff's complaints evince a general

Case No. 14-353, Docket No. 56 at 31.

On this record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has a
general history of litigious filing.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

This history justifies a

general order requiring pre-filing review by this Court of any

12

action filed by Plaintiff.

13

should not be issued, the Court intends to issue the following

14

pre-filing order, which will be applicable to any action

15

Plaintiff files in this Court:

Unless Plaintiff shows cause why it

16

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

17

accept for filing any further complaints filed by Franklin Wright

18

a.k.a. Jesse Swartz, until that complaint has first been reviewed

19

by the Court.

20

following subject matters or legal theories:

If the complaint is related to any of the

21

(1)

Violation of some duty owed;

22

(2)

Mention of the Federal Tort Claims Act or attachment of
Federal Tort Claims Act "claim letters";

23
24

(3)

Other cases previously filed in federal courts;

25

(4)

Requests to compel any defendant to answer questions,
perform investigations or evaluate policy proposals;

26
27
28

(5)

Obstruction of Plaintiff's legal process or legal
research; or
5

1

(6)

Conspiracies to "train" Plaintiff,

2

it will not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims.

3

cases filed by Plaintiff shall be forwarded to the undersigned

4

for pre-filing review."

5

All

Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may

6

file a statement showing cause why this order should not be

7

issued.

8

cause why the order should not be filed, the order shall be

9

entered and it shall be applicable in all future actions filed by

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

Plaintiff in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2
3

ADDENDUM
Northern District of Ohio
11-0038
Swartz v. McInerney, et al.
11-0168
Swartz v. Oracle Corp., et al.
11-0221
Swartz v. Ariba, Inc., et al.

Filed 1/6/2011
Filed 1/25/2011
Filed 1/31/2011

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Northern District of Illinois
15-10185 Swartz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, et al. Filed 11/9/2015
Northern District of California
13-4457
Wright v. Stanford University
13-5994
Wright v. United States
12/30/2013
14-0353
Wright v. U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, et al.
14-5525
Wright v. McGovern, et al.
12/18/2014
15-0283
Wright v. San Francisco, et al.
15-3204
Wright v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
15-3647
Wright v. SBO Pictures Inc., et al.
16-0505
Wright v. Stretch, et al.
16-0513
Wright v. Perez, et al.
16-1371
Wright v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
Sixth Circuit
11-3463
Swartz v. Oracle Corp.
11-3466
Swartz v. Ariba, Inc.

Filed 9/26/2013
Filed
Filed 1/23/2014
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed

1/21/2015
7/10/2015
8/10/2015
1/29/2016
1/29/2016
3/21/2016

Filed 4/27/2011
Filed 4/27/2011

Ninth Circuit
13-17439 Wright v. Stanford University
11/22/2013
14-16282 Wright v. U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, et al.
14-16563 Wright v. U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, et al.
15-15052 Wright v. U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, et al.
15-80052 In re Franklin Wright
15-15615 Wright v. McGovern, et al.
15-15842 Wright v. San Francisco, et al.

24
25
26
27
28
7

Filed
Filed 7/7/2014
Filed 8/11/2014
Filed 1/13/2015
Filed 3/27/2015
Filed 3/30/2015
Filed 4/23/2015

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT,

Case No.

v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

16-cv-00505-CW

Plaintiff,

BRIAN STRETCH, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in
the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California.
That on May 10, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies)
of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid
envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said
copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the
Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Franklin H. Wright
1001 Polk St., #64
San Francisco, CA 94109

21
22

Dated: May 10, 2016

23
24
25
26
27

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District
Court
By:________________________
Nichole Peric, Deputy Clerk to
the Honorable CLAUDIA WILKEN

28
8