tentative ruling declaring plaintiffs as vexatious 16 litigants and the provision of two weeks to oppose it were sufficient to provide 17 notice and an opportunity to be heard
How later courts described this case
- tentative ruling declaring plaintiffs as vexatious 16 litigants and the provision of two weeks to oppose it were sufficient to provide 17 notice and an opportunity to be heard
- noting that an order that would prevent filings that are “not 27 duplicative, and not frivolous” would be sufficiently narrowly tailored
- district court 26 properly considered the litigants’ history of state court litigation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GWENDOLYN HALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-04652-JWH-AGR
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13 v.
14 CALIFORNIA VICTIM OF CRIME
COMPENSATION BOARD,
15 THE PASADENA FIRE CHIEF
CHAD AUGUSTIN,
16 LINDSEY REED DIRECTOR OF
THE WOMAN ROOM,
17 SANTA CATALINA BRANCH
LIBRARY,
18 HASTING RANCH BRANCH
LIBRARY,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Hall filed a Complaint, thereby
2 commencing this case, as well as a Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (the
3 “IFP Request”).1 The Complaint is the latest of more than 30 actions that Hall
4 has filed in the federal courts, mainly the United States District Court for the
5 Central District of California, that are frivolous and duplicative. Accordingly,
6 the Court finds it appropriate to warn Hall that she may be designated as a
7 vexatious litigant. This Order places Hall on notice that this Court is
8 considering issuing a vexatious litigant order that will impose pre-filing
9 conditions upon her before she may file another Complaint, IFP Request, or
10 document in a case that is closed. If Hall opposes the designation, then she must
11 file a written response to this Order no later than July 19, 2024.
12 I. LEGAL STANDARD
13 “Federal courts can ‘regulate the activities of abusive litigants by
14 imposing carefully tailored restrictions under . . . appropriate circumstances.’”
15 Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014)
16 (quoting De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation
17 marks omitted)). In the Central District of California, the Court may, “[o]n its
18 own motion,” initiate a vexatious litigant order at “any time,” which eventually
19 may result in “a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filing from the
20 litigant . . . without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a
21 Magistrate Judge[.]” L.R. 83-8.2.
22 “When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they must:
23 (1) give litigants notice and ‘an opportunity to oppose the order before it [is]
24 entered’; (2) compile an adequate record for appellate review, including ‘a
25 listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a
26
27 1 Complaint [ECF No. 1]; Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF
1 vexatious litigant order was needed’; (3) make substantive findings of
2 frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as ‘to closely fit
3 the specific vice encountered.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (quoting
4 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48).
5 “The first and second of these requirements are procedural, while the
6 ‘latter two factors . . . are substantive considerations . . . [that] help the district
7 court define who is, in fact, a “vexatious litigant” and construct a remedy that
8 will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the litigant’s
9 right to access the courts.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063 (quoting Molski
10 v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007)).
11 II. ANALYSIS
12 A. Notice and Opportunity to Oppose the Order
13 This order serves as notice to Hall that she has until July 19, 2024, to file a
14 written opposition to her designation as a vexatious litigant. See Ringgold-
15 Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063 (tentative ruling declaring plaintiffs as vexatious
16 litigants and the provision of two weeks to oppose it were sufficient to provide
17 notice and an opportunity to be heard). This matter will be decided without oral
18 argument. See Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d
19 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n opportunity to be heard does not require an
20 oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue.”).
21 B. Compilation of an Adequate Record for Review
22 “An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases
23 and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order
24 was needed.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. The record may include cases filed in
25 other judicial districts. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064 (district court
26 properly considered the litigants’ history of state court litigation).
27 In its compilation of the record, the Court lists the following cases:
1 (1) Hall v. Gordo, Case No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal.
2 Oct. 27, 2023);
3 (2) Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal.
4 Jan. 2, 2024);
5 (3) Hall v. Lara, Case No. 2:24-cv-00123-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal.
6 Mar. 22, 2024);
7 (4) Hall v. Pasadena Fire Department, Case
8 No.2:24-cv-00200-JLS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2024);
9 (5) Hall v. Pasadena Police Department, Case
10 No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024);
11 (6) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20,
12 2024);
13 (7) Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:24-cv-00729-AB-MAR (C.D. Cal.
14 Jan. 31, 2024);
15 (8) Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case
16 No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024);
17 (9) Hall v. Lansing, Case No. 2:24-cv-00935-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal.
18 Feb. 15, 2024);
19 (10) Hall v. Pasadena Department of Motor Vehicles, Case
20 No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024);
21 (11) Hall v. California State University, Los Angeles, Case
22 No. 2:24-cv-02043-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2024);
23 (12) Hall v. Bonta, Case No. 2:24-cv-02044-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal.
24 Mar. 20, 2024);
25 (13) Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case
26 No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024);
27 (14) Hall v. Los Angeles Sheriff Department, Case
1 (15) Hall v. California State Board of Pharmacy, Case
2 No. 2:24-cv-02986-CBM-MRW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2024);
3 (16) Hall v. Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Executive Officers, Case
4 No. 2:24-cv-03357-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2024);
5 (17) Hall v. Jomsky, Case No. 2:24-cv-03456-MWF-AJR (C.D. Cal.
6 May 30, 2024);
7 (18) Hall v. California Department of Rehabilitation, Case
8 No. 2:24-cv-03498-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2024);
9 (19) Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D. Cal.
10 May 7, 2024);
11 (20) Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D.
12 Cal. May 10, 2024);
13 (21) Hall v. Department of the Treasury, Case
14 No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024);
15 (22) Hall v. Biden, Case No. 2:24-cv-4057-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.
16 May 23, 2024);
17 (23) Hall v. Estrada, Case No. 2:24-cv-04332-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal.
18 June 5, 2024);
19 (24) Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal.
20 May 30, 2024);
21 (25) Hall v. Kinsey, Case No. 17-55345 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017);
22 (26) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 23-cv-1909-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
23 (27) Hall v. U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Case No. 23-cv-2189-CRC
24 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
25 (28) Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 23-cv-2285-CRC
26 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
27 (29) Hall v. U.S. Department of Justice, Case No. 23-cv-2286-CRC
1 (30) Hall v. Department of Education, Case No. 23-cv-2287-CRC
2 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
3 (31) Hall v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Case
4 No. 23-cv-2288-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
5 (32) Hall v. Harris, Case No. 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
6 (33) Hall v. Biden, Case No. 23-cv-2290-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
7 (34) Hall v. Newsom, Case No. 23-cv-2122-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2023);
8 and
9 (35) Hall v. Wray, Case No. 23-cv-1908-CRC (D.D.C. July 7, 2023).
10 Those cases—all of which were dismissed as frivolous—lead the Court to
11 conclude that a vexatious litigant order is needed.
12 C. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment
13 “[I]t is incumbent on the court to make ‘substantive findings as to the
14 frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761
15 F.3d at 1064 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148). To qualify as frivolous,
16 “‘[t]he plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently
17 without merit.’” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (quoting Moy v. United States, 906
18 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990)). In the alternative, to qualify as harassment, “the
19 filing of several similar types of actions [must] constitute[] an intent to harass
20 the defendant or the court.’” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n.3 (quoting In re
21 Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Here, the Court finds that Hall’s
22 cases fall under both categories.
23 1. Frivolousness
24 Hall’s actions are numerous and patently without merit. In the instant
25 action, which is duplicative of several prior actions, Hall alleged the following:
26 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) has been victimizing her for
27 years and has forced her into human trafficking and homelessness. The FBI
1 used government phones in Hall’s name, controlled her computer, and put
2 chemicals in her food and hair products. The FBI allowed a woman to assume
3 Hall’s identity. The woman put her name on Hall’s dental and optometry
4 records and took over Hall’s bank account in order to launder money. The Vice
5 President of the United States had a court clerk falsify a federal judge’s initials
6 on court records. The Vice President filed a civil rights case in Hall’s name. An
7 agent stole Hall’s mail and public benefits. A firefighter took over Hall’s
8 apartment.2
9 Those allegations repeat Hall's assertions from several prior actions in
10 which she made fanciful and baseless allegations of a broad conspiracy, whose
11 participants included officials at the highest levels of government, to steal her
12 identity and to ruin her life.
13 For example, Hall has alleged repeatedly that the Vice President of the
14 United States tried to kill her, steal her identity, and frame her on criminal
15 charges. See Hall v. Harris, Case No. 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023);
16 Hall v. Estrada, Case No. 2:24-cv-04332-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2024);
17 Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal. May 30,
18 2024); Hall v. Biden, Case No. 2:24-cv-4057-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 23,
19 2024).
20 Hall has alleged repeatedly that federal agents and others have been
21 secretly entering her apartment to switch her vitamins, poison her food, and
22 tamper with her personal care products. See Hall v. Gordo, Case
23 No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Harris,
24 23-cv-2289-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case
25 No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2024); Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank,
26 Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024); Hall v. Lara,
27
1 Case No. 2:24-cv-00123-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2024); Hall v. Wray,
2 Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez,
3 Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). Hall once alleged
4 that FBI agents poured chemicals in the tubes supplying her drinking water. See
5 Hall v. Pasadena Police Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR
6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024).
7 Hall has alleged repeatedly that a woman, often with the help of
8 government officials, used Hall’s medical insurance to have a baby or to receive
9 medical care. See Hall v. Judge Rosenberg, Case No. 2:24-cv-04396-RGK (C.D.
10 Cal. May 30, 2024); Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case
11 No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024); Hall v. Bonta, Case
12 No. 2:24-cv-02044-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2024); Hall v. Social Security
13 Administration, Case No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024).
14 Hall once alleged that a defendant tampered with a baby’s blood to look like
15 Hall’s blood. See Hall v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR
16 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024).
17 Hall has alleged repeatedly that she lost public benefits because of
18 conspiracies against her by several entities and individuals, including
19 government agencies and officials. See Hall v. Gordo, Case
20 No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Biden, Case
21 No. 23-cv-2290-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2023); Hall v. Department of the
22 Treasury, Case No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024); Hall v.
23 Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10,
24 2024); Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D. Cal. May 7,
25 2024); Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC
26 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024).
27 Hall has alleged repeatedly that public officials, often with the cooperation
1 enrich themselves. See Hall v. Gordo, Case No. 2:23-cv-08444-JWH-AGR (C.D.
2 Cal. Oct. 27, 2023); Hall v. Flaggs, Case No. 2:24-cv-03594-FLA-MRW (C.D.
3 Cal. May 7, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D.
4 Cal. Jan. 2, 2024); Hall v. Department of the Treasury, Case
5 No. 2:24-cv-03736-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2024); Hall v. Los Angeles
6 Board of Supervisors Executive Officers, Case No. 2:24-cv-03357-JWH-AGR (C.D.
7 Cal. Apr. 29, 2024); Hall v. U.S. Postal Service Mail Fraud, Case
8 No. 2:24-cv-02217-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena Police
9 Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024); Hall
10 v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 10,
11 2024).
12 Those cases show that Hall has had, in a short period, 35 actions
13 dismissed because they were frivolous. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of
14 Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1523, 1526 (9th Cir.1983) (35 prior actions
15 qualified as sufficiently inordinate). Hall’s claims are sufficiently numerous and
16 patently without merit to qualify for a substantive finding of frivolousness.
17 2. Harassment
18 Although it is unnecessary to make an alternative finding of harassment,
19 the Court nonetheless finds that Hall has filed several similar types of actions
20 that permit a reasonable inference of an intent to harass the Court. In the cases
21 described above, Hall has continued to press her allegations after being warned
22 repeatedly that they are frivolous. Hall’s insistence on continuing to file suits
23 raising the same allegations, while knowing the Court will dismiss them as
24 frivolous, evinces an intent to harass the Court.
25 As an additional example, in the order of dismissal for Hall v. Rodriguez,
26 Case No. 2:23-cv-10768-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024), the Court
27 informed Hall that she had no private right of action in federal court for identity
1 Complaints in which the core allegations involved identity theft. See Hall v.
2 Pasadena Police Department, Case No. 2:24-cv-00270-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal.
3 Jan. 22, 2024); Hall v. Wray, Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-PA-AS (C.D. Cal.
4 Jan. 20, 2024); Hall v. Rodriguez, Case No. 2:24-cv-00729-AB-MAR (C.D. Cal.
5 Jan. 31, 2024); Hall v. Social Security Administration, Case
6 No. 2:24-cv-00846-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024); Hall v. Lansing, Case
7 No. 2:24-cv-00935-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena
8 Department of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal.
9 Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. Pasadena Department of Motor Vehicles, Case
10 No. 2:24-cv-01140-JWH-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024); Hall v. California
11 Department of Rehabilitation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03498-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal.
12 May 15, 2024).
13 Those cases show that Hall has a litigation history of filing several similar
14 types of actions with the knowledge that the Court will summarily reject them,
15 thereby raising a reasonable inference of an intent to harass the Court. See De
16 Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n.3. That history qualifies Hall’s litigation behavior for a
17 substantive finding of harassment.
18 D. Narrow Tailoring of the Order
19 “Finally, pre-filing orders ‘must be narrowly tailored to the vexatious
20 litigant’s wrongful behavior.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1066 (quoting
21 Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061). It should “cover[] only the type of claims [the
22 litigant] had been filing vexatiously[.]” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061.
23 Here, if Hall is designated as a vexatious litigant, then the pre-filing order
24 will provide that the Court will not accept any filings from her that are
25 duplicative or frivolous, as her litigation history reflects. See Ringgold-Lockhart,
26 761 F.3d at 1066 (noting that an order that would prevent filings that are “not
27 duplicative, and not frivolous” would be sufficiently narrowly tailored). Filings
1|| the pre-filing order “will not deny [Hall] access to courts on any . . . claim that is
2|| not frivolous.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061.
3 III. DISPOSITION
4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
5 1. Hall is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not
6|| designate her a vexatious litigant in light of her litigation history.
7 2. Hall objects to the issuance of an order designating her a
|| vexatious litigant, then she is DIRECTED to file a written response to this
9|| Order to Show Cause no later than July 19, 2024.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:___July 1, 2024 UL
SN ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28