Lee v. IRS

Filing 5

ORDER LIFTING PREFILING REVIEW ORDER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/24/13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) 1. The March 27, 2001 Prefiling Review Order is LIFT ED nunc pro tunc to September 9, 2013. The Clerk shall file a copy of the March 20, 2001 Prefiling Review Order (Exh. 1) and a copy of the March 27, 2001 Order Imposing Prefiling Review Requirement As Set Out in This Court's Order of March 20, 2001 (Exh. 2) in this miscellaneous action. 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a copy of the present Order in each of Lee's new actions: Civ. Nos. 13-00467 HG; 13-00468 SOM; 13-00469 LEK; and 13-00472 HG . 3. Lee is NOTIFIED that he has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and may not proceed without complete prepayment of filing fees without a colorable allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Robin M. S. Lee served by first class mail at the address of record on September 25, 2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
____________________________)
In re: ROBIN M.S. LEE,

ORDER LIFTING PREFILING REVIEW
ORDER; EXHIBITS 1-3
MISC. NO. 13-00182 SOM/BMK

ORDER LIFTING PREFILING REVIEW ORDER
On March 20, 2001, the court issued an order directing
Petitioner Robin M.S. Lee to show cause why a prefiling review
order should not be entered against any pleadings received from
him.

See Exh. 1, ECF No. 1-1; see also Civ. No. 00-00742 SOM,

Order, ECF No. 5 (“March 20, 2001 Order”).
incarcerated at that time.

Lee was not

The March 20, 2001 Order found that

Lee had burdened the court with numerous incomprehensible,
frivolous, and vexatious pleadings, and that, absent good cause,
such an order was required.

On March 27, 2001, after Lee failed

to show good cause, the court entered the prefiling review order.
See Order Imposing Pre-Filing Review Requirement as Set Out in
This Court’s Order of March 20, 2001 (“Prefiling Order”).
Exh. 2, ECF No. 1-2.

See

The Prefiling Order was to remain in effect

until further order of the court, although Lee was granted
permission to petition the court to lift the Prefiling Order two
years from its date of entry.
Five years later, after Lee was again incarcerated, he
petitioned to have the Prefiling Order lifted.
00042 HG, ECF No. 1.

See Misc. No. 06-

Then-Chief United States District Judge

Helen Gillmor denied Lee’s motion on March 28, 2006.
No. 2.

Id., ECF

Lee is now incarcerated in the Clark County Detention

Center, located in Las Vegas, Nevada, and has recently filed four
actions in this court.

See Civ. Nos. 13-00467 HG; 13-00468 SOM;

13-00469 LEK; and 13-00472 HG.

See Exh. 3, ECF No. 1-3.

Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in particular, to curb
frivolous prisoner complaints and appeals.

See Silva v. Di

Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Taylor
v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating “[t]he
PLRA filing fee provisions were enacted to deter the large number
of frivolous inmate lawsuits that were ‘clogging’ the federal
courts and ‘draining’ limited judicial resources”).

Section

1915(g) prohibits prisoners from proceeding without prepayment of
fees if they are unsuccessful frequent-filers or have a history
of malicious or frivolous litigation:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil
action or appeal a judgment in a civil action
or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
§ 1915(g).

Congress enacted this statute to “curb meritless

lawsuits, but ensure[] that meritorious lawsuits are not swept
2

away in the process.”

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129

(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 141 Cong. Rec. S146110–01, S14267 (daily
ed. Sept. 29, 1995)) (“As chief sponsor of the PLRA, Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch made the following
statement: ‘I do not want to prevent inmates from raising
legitimate claims. This legislation will not prevent those claims
from being raised.’”).
The PLRA adequately prevents frivolous and vexatious
filings from prisoners, while still protecting a prisoner’s right
to access the courts and challenge his or her sentence and
conditions of confinement with meritorious suits.

These

particular concerns are not relevant to nonprisoner litigants’
filings, in which the court’s only recourse is to issue prefiling
review orders to curb vexatious litigation.
More than twelve years have passed since the Prefiling
Order was entered against Lee; Lee was not a prisoner when the
Prefiling Order was entered.

Because Lee is again incarcerated

and it is clear that the screening requirements of the PLRA are
better suited to evaluate and screen his pleadings than the
twelve-year-old Prefiling Order, the Prefiling Order is hereby
LIFTED nunc pro tunc to September 9, 2013, the date the court
received Lee’s four new pleadings and his implied requests to
lift the Prefiling Order.

3

Lee is informed that, because he has accrued more than
three strikes under § 1915(g) and has been notified of these
strikes several times, he may not proceed without complete
prepayment of the filing fee in this court absent a colorable
allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury.1
CONCLUSION
1.

The March 27, 2001 Prefiling Review Order is

LIFTED nunc pro tunc to September 9, 2013.

The Clerk shall file

a copy of the March 20, 2001 Prefiling Review Order (Exh. 1) and
a copy of the March 27, 2001 Order Imposing Prefiling Review
Requirement As Set Out in This Court’s Order of March 20, 2001
(Exh. 2) in this miscellaneous action.
2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a copy of

the present Order in each of Lee’s new actions: Civ. Nos. 1300467 HG; 13-00468 SOM; 13-00469 LEK; and 13-00472 HG.
3.

Lee is NOTIFIED that he has accrued three strikes

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and may not proceed without

1

Lee has filed at least three prior actions in this court
that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
See Lee v. Lee,, Civ. No. 98-00380 ACK (D. Haw. 1998); Lee v.
Estate of Lee and U.S. Dist. Ct., Civ. No. 99-00370 SOM (D. Haw.
1999); Lee v. Hawaii Supreme Court, Civ. No. 00-00520 HG (D. Haw.
2000). The court has notified Lee of these strikes. See Order
Denying Petition to Lift Pre-filing Review Order, Misc. No. 0600042 HG, ECF No. 2, PageID #14.
4

complete prepayment of filing fees without a colorable allegation
of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 24, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

In re: Robin M.S. Lee, Misc. No. 13-00182 SOM/BMK; G:\docs\prose
attys\Ords\DMP\2013\RMSLEE lift pre-filing rvw ord.wpd

5