Harper v. US et al
Filing
3
ORDER Sua Sponte Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint; Denying as Moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Ordering Plaintiffs to File a Brief Showing Cause as to Why They are Not Vexatious Litigants; Ordering, in the Event of Pla intiffs' Non-Response, Pre-Filing Screening and Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants. Plaintiffs are to file a brief, in Case No. 3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS, showing cause as to why they are not "vexatious litigants" by November 20, 2017. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/30/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
MONTOREY DANYELL HARPER, et
al., pro se,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS
(Other Cases Listed Below)
ORDER:
v.
(1) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
16
17
18
(3) ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO
FILE A BRIEF SHOWING CAUSE
AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
19
20
21
(4) ORDERING, IN THE EVENT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ NON-RESPONSE,
PRE-FILING SCREENING AND
DECLARING PLAINTIFFS
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
I.
SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF CASES FILED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
2
On September 27, 2017, Plaintiffs Montorey Danyell Harper and Montorey LLC
3
(“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, filed twenty-three complaints against Defendants the
4
United States, et al. Several of these complaints have already been dismissed by this Court,
5
and by Judges Bashant and Houston pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1 Several more of
6
these cases were transferred to this Court pursuant to this district’s low number rule. See
7
S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 40.1(e). Further, three additional cases were originally assigned
8
to this Court as Case Nos. 17-cv-1967, 17-cv-1973, and 17-cv-1977.
9
A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
10
is additionally subject to mandatory sua sponte screening. The Court must dismiss any
11
complaint if at any time the Court determines that it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to
12
state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant
13
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254
14
F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)
15
(en banc).
16
The requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are analogous to those under
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule”) 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8, a pleading
18
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
19
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual
20
allegations,” a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above
21
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). To state
22
a claim upon which relief may be granted “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
23
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
24
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is facially
25
plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference
26
27
28
1
See Case Nos. 17-cv-1974, 17-cv-1975, 17-cv-1979, 17-cv-1980, 17-cv-1982, 17-cv-1987.
2
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words, “the non-
2
conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be
3
plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
4
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
5
claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
6
on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
7
In addition to the liberal pleading standards set out in Rule 8(a), a document filed
8
pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). When the
9
plaintiff is appearing pro se, the court affords the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt.
10
Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2001); Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d 621, 623
11
(9th Cir. 1988).
12
The Court will provide a brief summary table indicating the apparent basis of each
13
of Plaintiffs’ complaints below. The Court finds that each of Plaintiffs’ complaints in the
14
below list are scattered, not comprehensible, are unsupported by any factual allegations,
15
and consequently fail to state a claim that is plausible. As pleaded, the allegations in each
16
of the below complaints are insufficient to put Defendants on notice of the claims against
17
them as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8.
18
Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS each of the complaints below for failing to
19
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court denies as moot each
20
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed in each of the below cases. The Clerk
21
of Court is directed to close each of the cases listed below.
22
Case Number
3:17-cv-01965-GPCNLS
23
Case Name
Harper v. US et al
24
25
Description of Complaint2
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements that
Defendants are engaged in
technology crime and fraud
involving a Samsung Galaxy S3.
26
27
Each complaint is incoherent. The Court’s attempt to discern the contents of the complaint is made
solely for the purpose of identification of the basis for why the complaint fails to state a plausible claim.
2
28
3
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
2
3:17-cv-01966-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01968-GPCNLS
Harper et al v. US et al
3:17-cv-01969-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01970-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01971-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01972-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01976-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01978-GPCNLS
Harper et al v. US et al
3:17-cv-01981-GPCNLS
Harper v. US, Washington
DC et al
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding a “spiritual intrusion”
and the “use of drugs” by the
San Diego police Department to
attack the plaintiff.
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding spiritual attacks upon
him and apparent issues with
women’s organizations
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements that he
has been wronged by CNN and
the State of Tennessee through
an allegation of assault and other
issues
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements that he
was run over by a man in a
vehicle.
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements that a
female Sheriff officer attacked
him.
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding abuse involving
someone named “Bow Wow”
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements about
potential racketeering between
the judicial system and the
United States
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding television host Megan
Kelly
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
28
4
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
2
3
3:17-cv-01983-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01984-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01985-GPCNLS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01986-GPCNLS
Harper et al v. US et al
3:17-cv-01967-GPCAGS
Harper v. US et al
3:17-cv-01973-GPCWVG
Harper et al v. US et al
3:17-cv-01977-GPCBGS
Harper et al v. United
States of America et al
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
regarding Microsoft and Bill
Gates
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements that
technology interference
interrupted a lawsuit he drafted
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding politicians
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding spiritual assaults from
a former church
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding McDonalds
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding the United States and
a man named Bobby
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding a company named
PeopleSmart
Plaintiff appears to make
miscellaneous statements
regarding President Obama
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT DETERMINATION
As a means of stemming abusive litigation, the Court may issue an order requiring
a litigant to seek permission from the Court prior to filing any future suits. Johns v. Town
of Los Gatos, 834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993) “The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against
vexatious litigants. However, such pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should
rarely be used.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)
(internal citations omitted). However, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be
5
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly
2
could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v.
3
Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990).
4
A pre-filing review order is appropriate if (1) the plaintiff is given adequate notice
5
and an opportunity to oppose the order; (2) the Court compiles an adequate record for
6
review; (3) the Court makes substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of
7
the litigant's actions; and (4) the order is narrowly tailored “to closely fit the specific vice
8
encountered.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d at 1145–48; see also Johns v. Town of
9
Los Gatos, 834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (applying De Long).
10
A.
11
The Court takes this opportunity to provide notice to Plaintiffs Montorey Danyell
Notice
12
Harper and Montorey LLC that, for the reasons described below, it intends to deem
13
Plaintiffs vexatious litigants and impose a pre-filing review order. Plaintiffs are ordered
14
to file, in Case No. 3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS, a brief to show cause as to why the Court
15
should not declare the plaintiffs as “vexatious litigants” by November 20, 2017. See De
16
Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring district court to
17
provide plaintiff with an opportunity to oppose the entry of order deeming plaintiff a
18
vexatious litigant).
19
B.
20
“An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and
21
motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.”
22
Id. (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147). Missud v. Nevada, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1055
23
(N.D. Cal. 2012), aff'd, 520 F. App'x 534 (9th Cir. 2013). An adequate record exists to
24
support a vexatious litigant finding because Plaintiff Montorey Danyell Harper and in
Adequate Record
25
26
27
28
6
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
many of the cases Montorey LLC3 have filed—not including the seventeen complaints at
2
issue in Section I above—at least thirty-three other frivolous filings in the Southern
3
District of California.4 These cases and the dispositions in those cases are listed in the
4
chart below:
5
6
Case
Number
8
Date
Filed
Date
Closed
Disposition
3:17-cv-01049MMA-JMA
7
Name of Case
Harper v. Office of Child
Support Enforcement et al
5/24/17
5/26/2017
Dismissal for Failure to Pay
Filing Fee
Harper et al v. US et al
8/8/2017
8/30/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. City of San Diego
et al
8/14/2017
8/28/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper et al v. Extended
Stay America et al
5/24/2017
8/28/2017
IFP Dismissal
5/24/2017
5/25/2017
IFP Denied; Leave to Pay
Filing Fee
5/23/2017
8/14/2017
Dismissal for Failure to Pay
Filing Fee
5/23/2017
6/12/2017 IFP Dismissal
8/14/2017
9/28/2017
9
3:17-cv-01585WQH-MDD
3:17-cv-01633DMS-MDD
10
11
12
3:17-cv-01053WQH-BGS
13
14
3:17-cv-01068BAS-WVG
15
16
3:17-cv-01069CAB-AGS
3:17-cv-01070GPC-MDD
3:17-cv-01636MMA-MDD
17
18
19
Harper et al v.
Telemarketing Concepts et
al
Harper et al v. Choice
Hotels et al
Harper v. Montorey LLC et
al
Montorey LLC et al v.
United States et al
IFP Denied; Leave to Pay
Filing Fee
20
21
22
3
23
24
25
26
27
28
The following cases appear to have been filed on solely on behalf of Plaintiff Montorey Danyell
Harper and not Montorey LLC: 17-cv-1586, 17-cv-1587, 16-cv-1122, 16-cv-1123, 16-cv-1199, 16-cv1200, 16-cv-1201, 16-cv-1202, 17-cv-1821
4
Plaintiff Montorey Harper appears to have filed thirty cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina
which were similarly dismissed as frivolous. See Harper v. United States Department of Justice, 2017
WL 1319789 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2017). A Court in the Northern District of Florida in June 2017 found
that Montorey Harper was a “prolific litigant who has filed at least 61 complaints across the country
since 2015, the vast majority of which appear to have been dismissed as frivolous.” Harper v. United
States, 2017 WL 2952291, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 8, 2017) (recommending dismissal for improper venue
and stating that Harper’s conduct which “show[ed] little in the way of legal preparation and
consideration” suggested a pre-filing injunction could be warranted).
7
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
2
3:17-cv-01817WQH-JMA
Harper et al v. US et al
9/7/2017
3:17-cv-01586WQH-KSC
Harper v. US et al
8/8/2017
8/15/2017
IFP Dismissal
3:17-cv-01587GPC-MDD
Harper v. US et al
8/8/2017
8/10/2017
IFP Dismissal
3:16-cv-00763AJB-BLM
Harper et al v. San Diego
City Administration
Building
3/31/2016
6/10/2016
IFP Dismissal
3/31/2016
4/6/2016
IFP Dismissal
3/31/2016
6/10/2016
IFP Dismissal
3/31/2016
6/10/2016
IFP Dismissal
IFP Denied; Leave to Pay
Filing Fee
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3:16-cv-00765BTM-JLB
3:16-cv-00766AJB-BLM
3:16-cv-00768AJB-BLM
Harper et al v. San Diego
City Administration
Building et al
Harper et al v. San Diego
City Administration
Building et al
Harper et al v. San Diego
City Administration
Building et al
3:16-cv-00769AJB-BLM
Harper et al v. San Diego
City Administration
Building et al
3/31/2016
6/10/2016
IFP Dismissal
3:16-cv-00834LAB-WVG
Harper et al v. San Diego,
City of et al
4/7/2016
4/12/2016
IFP Dismissal
3:16-cv-00992GPC-BGS
Harper et al v. San Diego,
City of et al
4/25/2016
6/7/2016
IFP Dismissal
3:16-cv-01122JAH-KSC
Harper v. US DOJ
5/11/2016
5/19/2016
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US DOJ
5/11/2016
5/16/2016
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US DOJ
05/11/16
6/10/2016
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US DOJ et al
5/19/2016
5/27/2016
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US DOJ et al
5/19/2016
5/20/2016
IFP Dismissal
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3:16-cv-01123LAB-NLS
3:16-cv-01124AJB-JLB
3:16-cv-01199WQH-BLM
3:16-cv-01200MMA-NLS
28
8
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
3:16-cv-01201AJB-BLM
3:16-cv-01202AJB-BLM
Harper v. US DOJ
5/19/2016
6/24/2016 IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US DOJ
5/19/2016
6/10/2016
Harper et al v. US DOJ
8/14/2017
Harper v. Psychologist San
Diego Police et al
9/8/2017
9/12/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US et al
9/27/2017
10/3/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper et al v. United States
et al
9/27/2017
10/3/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper et al v. US et al
9/27/2017
10/4/2017
IFP Dismissal
Harper v. US et al
9/27/2017
10/3/2017
IFP Dismissal
3:17-cv-01982GPC-BLM
Harper v. US et al
9/27/2017
9/28/2017
IFP Dismissal
3:17-cv-01987BAS-NLS
Harper v. US et al
9/27/2017
10/3/2017
IFP Dismissal
3:17-cv-01634BTM-BLM
3:17-cv-01821AJB-BLM
3:17-cv-01974BAS-MDD
3:17-cv-01975BAS-WVG
3:17-cv-01979JAH-BGS
3:17-cv-01980BAS-BGS
IFP Dismissal
Plaintiff failed to file First
Amended Complaint by
Court assigned deadline
15
16
Accordingly, an adequate record exists to support a vexatious litigant finding. See
17
Calhoun v. San Diego Cty., No. 12CV2596 AJB JMA, 2012 WL 5878666, at *3 (S.D.
18
Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (twenty-six frivolous cases constituted adequate record).
Substantive Findings as to the Frivolous Nature of Plaintiff’s Actions
19
C.
20
Under the third prong, the Court must “look at both the number and content of the
21
filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant's claims.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059
22
(citations and quotation marks omitted). “An injunction cannot issue merely upon a
23
showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff's claims must not only be numerous, but also be
24
patently without merit.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court finds that
25
there is more than a sufficient basis to conclude that Plaintiffs’ filings have been both
26
numerous and patently without merit.
27
28
9
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
Plaintiff Montorey Harper5 has filed fifty complaints in this district since 2016.
1
2
Almost all of these complaints have been dismissed under the Court’s power to sua
3
sponte review and dismiss frivolous claims or claims that failed to state a claim on which
4
relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). In a few cases, the district
5
court denied in forma pauperis status and proceeded to close the case after Plaintiffs
6
failed to pay the filing fee.6 No case filed by Plaintiffs appears to have ever proceeded
7
beyond the complaint.
8
A sampling of the plaintiffs’ various complaints show that they have been
9
consistently patently frivolous or failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
10
See, e.g., Case No. 17-cv-1987, Dkt. No. 1 (“Spiritual assault are so bad that it is moving
11
the hotel ect, lawsuit will be filed, you did this in 2015 and 2016.”); Case No. 17-cv-
12
1982, Dkt. No. 1 (“This is the US and San Diego saying something about Leader Loyal a
13
Captain on board a Leader Vessel MLLC technology a Leader Vessel now the star trek
14
crew will be sued.”). The frivolous nature of these claims is also seen in the cases that
15
the Court sua sponte dismisses in Section I. See, e.g., Case No. 17-cv-1981, Dkt. No. 1
16
(“’Got a hold’” says that it was in that manner as well and Microsoft was assaulted
17
whether or not Bill Gates was complicit.”); Case No. 17-cv-1966, Dkt. No. 1 (“The
18
Plaintiff has complained since 2014 about spiritual intrusions and the use of drugs to do
19
this.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that the frivolous nature of these complaints
20
supports a vexatious litigant finding. See Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, No. C-12-
21
4187 EMC, 2013 WL 144047, at *1, 6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) (finding plaintiff was a
22
vexatious litigant where plaintiff had filed a significant number of frivolous lawsuits that
23
were “often vague, confusing, or unintelligible”).
24
25
26
5
In many of the cases, he was joined by Plaintiff Montorey LLC.
Two cases remain open. In Case No. 17-cv-1817, Plaintiff has been directed to pay the filing fee or
submit a more complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In Case No. 17-cv-1634, the Court
granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint, but failed to do so within the thirty-day period
court ordered deadline.
6
27
28
10
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
D.
2
The Court is mindful that “narrowly tailored” pre-filing review orders are needed to
3
“prevent infringement on the litigator’s right of access to the courts.” De Long, 912 F.2d
4
at 1148. However, a general history of litigious filing may support a broad pre-filing
5
injunction. See Hurt, 2013 WL 144047, at *7 (“the court has approved broad pre-filing
6
orders against vexatious litigants who have a history of filing a wide variety of frivolous
7
actions”). The Ninth Circuit has approved broad pre-filing orders post DeLong. See Aref
8
v. Marder, 15 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1994) (memorandum) (upholding broad pre-filing review
9
order preventing vexatious litigant from filing in the Central District of California without
10
obtaining leave of court”). See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir.
11
1984) (pre-filing reviews are an extraordinary sanction but are warranted where vexatious
12
litigants’ filings have been “equally as extraordinary”). In Hurt, the Court found that “the
13
wide range of frivolous actions Plaintiff has filed in this district makes it difficult to tailor
14
a pre-filing order to a specific group of defendants or type of legal claim. Plaintiff’s history
15
of vexatious litigation has been broad, and thus a responsive pre-filing order must be
16
similarly broad.” Id. at *8.
Narrowly Tailored Order
17
Here, the type of frivolous actions has been similarly broad and makes a tailored
18
pre-filing order difficult. Plaintiffs’ frivolous claims are not confined to a single set of
19
defendants, nor a single topic area. Accordingly, the Court finds that a broad pre-filing
20
review order, as described below, would be most appropriate for all future lawsuits
21
initiated by Plaintiffs Montorey Danyell Harper or Montorey LLC in this district. See
22
Hurt, 2013 WL 144047, at *8 (“Given the variety of meritless suits Plaintiff has brought,
23
this Court finds it appropriate to subject all future lawsuits initiated by Plaintiff in this
24
district to pre-filing review.”).
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
11
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
2
3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will:
1. DISMISS Case Nos. 3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01966-GPC-NLS,
4
3:17-cv-01968-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01969-GPC-NLS , 3:17-cv-01970-GPC-
5
NLS, 3:17-cv-01971-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01972-GPC-NLS , 3:17-cv-01976-
6
GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01978-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01981-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-
7
01983-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01984-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01985-GPC-NLS,
8
3:17-cv-01986-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01967-GPC-AGS, 3:17-cv-01973-GPC-
9
WVG, 3:17-cv-01977-GPC-BGS
10
2. DENY as Moot motions to proceed in forma pauperis in Case Nos. 3:17-cv-
11
01965-GPC-NLS,3:17-cv-01966-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01968-GPC-NLS,
12
3:17-cv-01969-GPC-NLS , 3:17-cv-01970-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01971-GPC-
13
NLS, 3:17-cv-01972-GPC-NLS , 3:17-cv-01976-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01978-
14
GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01981-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01983-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-
15
01984-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01985-GPC-NLS, 3:17-cv-01986-GPC-NLS,
16
3:17-cv-01967-GPC-AGS, 3:17-cv-01973-GPC-WVG, 3:17-cv-01977-
17
GPC-BGS
18
3. DIRECT Plaintiffs to file a brief, in Case No. 3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS,
19
showing cause as to why they are not “vexatious litigants” by November 20,
20
2017
21
22
4. If Plaintiffs fails to respond by the above deadline, the Court will enter an
Order to:
23
a. DECLARE that Plaintiffs are “vexatious litigants” and require that
24
pre-filing screening apply as to Plaintiffs Montorey Harper and
25
Montorey LLC.
26
b. ORDER that the Clerk of this Court may not file or accept any further
27
complaints filed by or on behalf of Plaintiffs Montorey Harper or
28
Montorey LLC. If Plaintiffs wish to file a complaint, they shall
12
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
1
provide a copy of any such complaint, a letter requesting that the
2
complaint be filed, and a copy of this Order to the Clerk of this Court.
3
The Clerk shall then forward the complaint, letter, and copy of this
4
Order to a reviewing Judge for a determination of whether the
5
complaint should be accepted for filing. Any violation of this Order
6
will expose Plaintiffs to a contempt hearing and appropriate sanctions,
7
and any action filed in violation of this Order will be subject to
8
dismissal. If the Court does not grant permission to file the document,
9
in writing, within 30 days of the date of the letter, permission will be
10
deemed denied.
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: October 30, 2017
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
3:17-cv-01965-GPC-NLS (Other Cases Listed Below)
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?