Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Monaghan v. Trebek

Ceurt, U.S.

om

ey TLE D

02 259 ‘UG 82002

OF PRICE OF THE CLERK

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Andrew Monaghancaggm ,

Petitioner,

v.

A. Trebex, P. Sajak, individually and as employees of

Sony Pictures; G. Kemp, D. Rains, R. Ebert, D. Ono,

D. Sawyer individually and as ABC employees; M

Isner, individually and as CEO employee of Disney

Corp.;

C. Henry, K. Curic, T. Savage, F. Colemen, R. Romero,

individually and as NBC employees; B. Schnere, K. Carr,

J. Elias, R. Mitchell, D. Rather, tndividually and as CBS

employees; O. Winfrey, individually and as shareholder of

Harpo Inc.,

Respondents

On Petition For Wnt Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

O’Melveny & Myers Andrew Monaghan

Luann L. Simmons Pro Se

Counsel of Record P.O. Box 5742

114 Pacifica Playa Del Rey, CA 90293

Ervine, CA 92184

Ph #: 949-737-2900

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether truth is the goal during civil procedures should not

the accuracy of a statement offered as evidence be considered

equal significantly from the surroundings and circumstances

which evidence was obtained?

Whether a district court may choose to dismiss a civil rights

complaint through diversion and denial of fact and law?

ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The parent companies of Defendants are as follows: CBS

is owned by Via Com, NBC is parented by General Electric,

and ABC by Disney Corp. Sony Pictures has no parent or

subsidiary companies. Harpo Inc. has no parent or subsidiary

companies.

tii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......... i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT....... ii

EE SEITE Oi dic cs dav sacevend vencesses a iii

cians hi Nap nce bh ywcvdes ss sasnsaesevesees iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....... On Ie Vv

TS Ai acs So tAdbcrves ccs dekavevacebenuess vi

aie areas batbads texan dhevded ob aww ves vi

I RGLR Nate caGth pics Sddbas ca vnide wan dedceveveesiess vi

ees ale chu bes spines cbwaenes l

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................... 2

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION

PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND RULES............ 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............ 4

SEA dGeevs OF CASE. ..... 2... 2... ccc ccc cce ccs sceees 5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS........................ 0005 6

ica tai ca ise scpas She aeoescabasyectieas 7

iV

APPENDIX

Opinion and Judgment of the United States District

Court for Northern California in Andrew J. Monaghan,

Jessica M. Monaghan, Jacqueline St.J Monaghan v.

A. Trebex, O. Winfrey, R. Ebert, G. Kemp, D. Rains,

D. Ono, D. Sawyer, M. Isner, and P. Sajak, Case No.

Gp sd pccnccdcancs sasacls soreucdnacsawiein Ips aeubekieasecin la

Opinion and Judgment of the United States Court of

America for 9" Circuit in Andrew Monaghan, Jessica

Monaghan, Jacqueline Monaghan v. A. Trebex,

O. Winfrey, R. Ebert, G. Kemp, D. Rains, D. Ono,

D. Sawyer, M. Isner, P. Sajak, Case No. 01-16560

Cer ee has cats iv cuckddckueniseboncionnicnspeuses 10a

Order of Dismissal Andrew J. Monaghan, et al. v.

Alex Trebex, et al., Case No. C00-3345........00000....... 17a

Letter to United States Justice Department................. 20a

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 42 USC 1985,

113 S.Ct. 753, 506 U.S. 263 122 L.Ed.2d 34 34, 113 S.Ct.

Fe, PENG ss Sco labia Sacks ec pus ada ioaecs wastes Lasoo 6

McDonell Douglas Corp. v. Percy Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36

L.Ed.2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817 No. 72-490......0000000000.00002.. 6

U.S. v. Castro, D.C. 171 1975, 401 F.Supp. 120 Buckley v.

Valeo District College, 1976 96 S.Ct. 612, 424 U.S. 1 46

ee ES pe eeen Phe Re Mira pease Paereaey Aer a ep 6

Locklear v. State, 1979, 273 N.W.2d 334, 86 Wis. 603....... 6

Snowden v. Huges, Ill., 1944, 64 S.Ct. 397, 321 U.S. 1, 88

Dem Mirek saehoceapcdcis vanris da pas daeien) as tose cpcubaernencean es 6

Deefield Hutterian Ass'n v. Speswich Board of Education,

Fa eT Beis vin kg cnn gad nce tagas eases 6

Washington v. Davis, Dis. Col. 1976, 56 S.Ct. 2040, 426 U.S.

er I iol Ci ccchuccmth vaca desdabevedeons wn aseveten 5,6

Barry v. School District of City of Benton Harbor, Michigan,

CPAs I RE, Ce UN I css ctbeScdasenencicccnsavcacwssos 6

Powell v. Power, C.A. N.Y. 1970, 436 F.2d 84..................6

Angell v. Zinsser, D.C. Conn. 1979, 473 F.Supp. 488......... 5,6

U.S. v. Uvalde Consol. Independent School Dist. C.A. tex,

PENN NBS soy ndecaN ss b6oaiss i uh Fuh Man coded baecn wes ecdea 6

U.S. v. Dallas County Com’n, C.A. ala 1984, 739 F.2d 1529.. 6

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

CONSTITUTION

United States Constitution, Amendment V......... 3,5

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV...... 3,5

STATUTES

es inks nits ocehangieddasstinaktatess een 3

ee isin idieceuch sad cudadueiieatines teal 2,3

MR EE in id dh vedi ci-ccen viarchegitaont tesa seit 3

MO IN oi ick cis een thintuce, 2,3,5

RD es ei hikes Ssckcs ntuthdcateh vendo 2,3,5

RULES

AD > AU ea rere Pat at Rea, SOEs 3

Be ee cians ess cunncoocnnsekoumrcaas 2,3

. ¢ 4g RM ene tion 3

Pel Se Oe cc 3

I

OPINIONS BELOW

The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals of

which Petitioner seeks review is listed as Andrew Monaghan,

Jessica Monaghan, Jacqueline Monaghan v. A. Trebex, O.

Winfrey, R. Ebert, G. Kemp, D. Ono, D. Rains, D. Sawyer, M.

Isner, P. Sajak. The opinion also appears in the Appendix to

this Petition. The decision of the District Court is listed exactly

as above, Case No. 01-16560 CT/A6#CV-01-00938 WHA and

the District Court’s interpretations and perversion of the

Constitution are unbalanced and biased. ~

2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This dangerous, overly worn out petitioner filed the present

lawsuit because the unhesitating fools continue their

manifestation of ambiguity or unfading, invidious, organized,

lawless, on-air discriminating conduct that forces violence on

petitioner and his property under 42 USC 1985-3 and 42 USC

Section 1983 equivocally confers jurisdiction of being two

Federal Civil Rights statutes backing petitioner’s complaint.

On April 12, 2001, the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California filed a reckless judgment.

Petitioner appealed that dismissal pursuant to 28 USC 1291 to

the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court. On May 28, 2002, the Ninth

Circuit Appellate Court contributed and affirmed the lower

court’s reckless judgment. Petitioner did not, with good

reasoning, file for a rehearing; instead, and by the power and

guidance of the United States Supreme Court relaxed Rules 12

and 13, filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari in a timely,

washed-up fashion.

At

3

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PROVISIONS

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section 1983 of Title 42 states: every person who, under color

of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any

State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other

person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN

AN ACTION AT LAW, suit in equity, or other proper

proceedings for redress.

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6))

(b) Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any

pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or

third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive

pleading thereto if one is required, except that the

option of the pleader be made by motion...(6) failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution states this Amendment is broader than

Amendment Fifteen as its protective buckler shields all citizens

of the United States from abridgment of privileges and

immunities of citizens and all from deprivation of life, liberty

and property without due process and from denial of the equal

protection of the law.

STATUTES AND RULES

28 USC § 1924 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17

28 USC § 1291 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

42 USC § 1971 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23-4(A)

42 USC Section 1985 Fed. R. Civ. P. (dX(1)

42 USC § 1983-3

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

THE APPELLATE COURT’S AND _ DISTRICT

COURT’S DISMISSAL OF MONAGHAN’S CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS FANCIFUL

AND VEXATIOUS IS CONTRARY TO WHAT VIEWERS

LIKE YOU AND I OBSERVED. THE DEFENDANTS’

PARTICIPATED IN “ON AIR” ORGANIZED, LAWLESS,

OUT OF CONTROL CONDUCT VIOLATING FOR FIVE

YEARS DAILY PETITIONER MONAGHAN’S CIVIL

RIGHTS AND PETITIONER SEEKS RELIEF.

THIS COURT’S REVIEW IS WARRANTED BECAUSE

CIRCUIT COURTS HAVE IGNORED PLAINTIFF’S

EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL RIGHTS CASE INVOLVING

TELEVISION PERSONALITIES AND THEIR WISH TO

IINFLICT GREAT BODILY HARM ON PETITIONER.

RESPECTFULLY MONAGHAN PLEADS HIS PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL BE GRANTED.

5

STATEMENT OF CASE

Because of the Court’s possible politically motivated

opinions in Monaghan et al. v. Trebex et al., Case No. 01-

16560 CT/A6#CV-01-00938 (see Washington v. Davis, Dis.

Col. 1976 96 S.Ct. 2040, 426 U.S. 229, 48 L.Ed.2d 597),

indicates that no resolution of the federal constitutional

question presented hinges on imaginable and delusional

observation of the facts of the case. Mr. Monaghan offers a

new set of facts that proves we have a bona fide constitutional

complaint brought under 42 USC 1985 (3) and 42 USC Section

1983 in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of our

civil rights case.

Since January 1997, Defendants in Case No. 9803086 till

present Case No. C01-00938 (see Angell v. Zinsser, D.C. Conn.

1979, 473 F.Supp. 488 and Bacon v. Graham, D.C. Ariz. 1972,

348 F.Supp. 996) civil nghts complaint have predominantly,

through gestures, double meaning comments, innuendoes,

threats, shown malice with intent on air to inflict great bodily

harm. Monaghan’s civil rights guaranteed by the 14 and 5™

Amendments of the Constitution of the United States were

violated repeatedly daily for five years by Defendants.

Plaintiff is entitled to relief for damages he continues to sustain

as a result of Defendants’ actions.

Petitioner incorporates each and every allegation of his

Complaint. Defendants collaborated collectively these actions

causing Monaghan severe emotional distress. Defendants’

actions were done maliciously, willfully and wantonly on air.

United States Attorney General was informed of another

problem and immediately pursued with an iron fist witnessing

on tape the information of enclosed letter.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On Sunday evening, July 23, 2002, Petitioner was attacked

parked on 9" NW across from a hock shop on H Street. Within

five minutes after parking, having side door of van open,

roughly fifteen people were gathered around and someone

threw a packet of firecrackers inside. Then rocks were hurled,

as were a few 4x4s, making contact and visibly damaging the

exterior of the van. Petitioner drove away upset and angry, not

contacting Metro Police. The infliction of emotional distress is

caused from the Defendants on local news broadcasters’ crude,

ambiguous, invidious, discriminating conduct on air, which

continue to inflame and manifest this country’s reactions

towards Petitioner. His civil rights lawsuit, Case No. CV01-

00938, Complaint hopefully will be reviewed because of the

preponderance of evidence. See Snowden v. Hughes, Iil.,

1944, 64 S.Ct. 397, 321 U.S. 1, 88 L_Ed. 497.

On May 31, 2002, at 6:30 p.m., ABC Nightly News, Peter

Jennings started the broadcast with “They heard it on tape and

had quick briefing.” He then detailed the real news until 6:45

and stated, “Sometimes we make foolish mistakes.” Low and

behold, George W. Bush was on that news broadcast and made

the comment “Gotta keep him from going further,” which, like

Peter Jennings, had no relevance to news. It was an on air

message. See U.S. v. Dallas County Com'n, C.A. ala 1984,

739 F.2d 1529. |

Regarding cases in Table of Authorities, since each and

every case has identical discriminatory civil rights violation

problems as Petitioner’s (Case No. CV01-00938), these cases

should be included in Complaint, e.g., page 14 line 23 through

page 15 until line 17 (see Barry v. School District of City of

Benton Harbor, Michigan, C.A. Mich. 1974, 505 F.2d 238),

which, as all the others, were taken right from the 14”

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

-

CONCLUSION

The search for truth is furthered and accomplished with the

help of the United States Department of Justice Attorney

General’s involvement and the District Court’s failure to allow

demonstration or introduce a prevention cure of the defendants

hindering. Based on the foregoing arguments and authorities,

Monaghan respectfully requests this Court allow him to

proceed with his right to pursue the violations of his

constitutional nights by the defendants by granting his Petition

for Writ of Certiorari emphatically.

Respectfully submitted,

O’Melveny & Myers Andrew J. Monaghan, Pro Se

Luann L. Simmons P.O. Box 5742

Counsel of Record Plaza Del Rey, CA 90293

114 Pacifica

Ervine, CA 92184

Ph No.: 949-737-2900

la

FILED

United States District Court

Northern District of California

APR 12 2001

RICHARD W. WIEKING

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW J. MONAGHAN, JESSICA M.

MONAGHAN, AND JACQUELINE ST.J.

MONAGHAN,

Plaintiffs, No. C 01-00938 WHA

V.

A. TREBEX, O. WINFREY, R. EBERT,

G. KEMP, D. RAINS, D. ONO,

D. SAWYER, M. ISNER, and P. SAJAK,

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, BARRING PLAINTIFF

ANDREW J. MONAGHAN FROM FILING FURTHER

RELATED COMPLAINTS, AND CLOSING FILE

Since August 10, 1998, plaintiff Andrew Monaghan has

filed at least seven actions, prior to this action, in this court.

The seven actions previous to this one are as follows:

C 98-03086 CAL Andrew Monaghan; Jessica

Monaghan; Jacqueline

Monaghan v. Ricki Cheese; Fred

Fredricks; Paul Moyer; Fred

Roggin; Fritz Coleman; Chuck

Henry; and Katir Currie.

C 00-00088 CAL

C 00-00374 CW

C 00-00774 MEJ —

C 00-03345 JL

C 00-04734 MMC

C 00-00566 PJH

2a

Andrew Monaghan v. Will Wier

Kabe and Bill Wier.

Andrew Monaghan; Jessica

Monaghan; and Jacqueline

Monaghan v. Disney

Corporation.

Andrew Monaghan v. Bob Bee,

Pavilions Store Manager.

Andrew J. Monaghan; Jessica

Monaghan and Jacqueline

Monaghan v. Alex Trebex;

Oprah; Roger Erbert; Gart Kemp;

Dallas Rains; David Ano; Dian

Sawyer; Pat Sajack; Michael

Isner; Tracie Savage; Chuck

Henry; Fritz Colemen; Rick

Romero; Katie Curry; NBC ©

Studios; Katie Curry; Kretchin

Carr; Jonathan Elias; Bill

Schnere; Russ Mitchell; Danny

Rather, ABC Studios; and CBS

Studios.

Andrew Monaghan; Jessica

Monaghan; and Jacqueline

Monaghan v. Alex Trebex;

Oprah Winfrey; Rodger Ebert;

Gart Kemp; Dallas Rains; David

Ono; Dian Sawyer; Pat Sajack;

and Michael Isner.

Andrew J. Monaghan; Jessica

Monaghan; and Jacqueline

Monaghan v. Alex Trebek;

Oprah Winfrey; Rodger Ebert;

3a

Gart Kemp; Dallas Rains; David

Ono; Dian Sawyer; Pat Sajak;

Mickeal Isner; Tracie Savage;

Chuck Henery; Fritz Colemen;

Rick Romero; Katie Kurick,

3000 West Alameda Bivd.,

Burbank, California; NBC

Studios; Kretchin Carr; Bill

Schnere; Russ Mitchell; Danny

Rather; and CBS Studios, 6121

Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif.

90028.

In cases C 98-03086 CAL, C 00-00088 CAL, C 00-

00374 CW, C 00-00774 MEJ, and C 00-04734 MMC, plaintiff’

has sought to proceed in forma pauperis. In each of those

cases his application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied

and the complaint dismissed. In Case No. C 00-03345 JL

plaintiff paid the filing fee. That case was dismissed at the

initial case management conference under Rules 8(a) and

11(b)(1) and (3). Plaintiff also paid the filing fee in Case No.

C 01-00566 PJH. That case was also dismissed. Judge

Hamilton found that the compiaint should be interpreted as a

notice of appeal in Case No. C 00-4734 MMC and processed as

such, and ordered that the filing fee be refunded to plaintiff.

' In some of these cases, plaintiff Andrew Monaghan was the only

names plaintiff. In others, he named his daughters Jessica and Jacqueline

Monaghan as plaintiffs. In this action, plaintiff was the only named

individual to sign the complaint and other documents in the case. A non-

attorney may only in his own behalf. Cato v. United States, 70 F3d

1103, 1106 (9" Cir. 1995); CLE. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818

F.2d 696, 697 (9" Cir. 1987). This order therefore primarily discusses

plaintiff Andrew Monaghan. As discussed below, although this order

dismisses the complaint in its entirety, as to all plaintiffs, it bars only

Andrew Monaghan, the only plaintiff properly a part of this action, from

filing future related complaints.

4a

While some of the underlying facts in plaintiff's

previous cases have differed, the actions C 98-03086 CAL, C

00-00088 CAL, C 00-00374 CW, C 00-03345 JL, C 00-04734

MMC, C 00-00566 PJH, and the instant action, C 01-00938

WHA, have primarily sought relief for the same type of alleged

injury relating to wrongful conduct that was relayed to plaintiff

via television broadcasting. Several of the cases not only name

the same defendants but are based on complaints that

substantially consist of photocopies of the same handwritten

pages. Case No. 00-00774 MEJ is the only one to concern a

different type of grievance altogether. |

Shortly after the dismissal of Case No. C 01-00566

PJH, plaintiff filed the instant action. The first page of the

complaint reads in its entirety as follows:

Because of Judge P. Hamiltons bias conduct with deliberately

prejudicial of effectiveness of Courts business is one reason

the above cases have never be heard at all. Case 00/0566 all 19

defendants received summons but never answered complaint

Judge Hamilton unreasonable conduct forced above to re-file the

same identicall Complaint Interpretation of appeal C 004734 was

incorrect. Am not asked to be appealed.

Attached to this cover page is a photocopy of 48 pages of a

file-stamped handwritten complaint dated December 8, 2000,

in Case No. 00-03345 JL. The allegations in the complaint are

rambling, incoherent, and often illegible. Plaintiff alleges a

“single scheme [of] invidious misconduct on air which re-

occures [sic] everyday...extortion of fear & violence forced

upon plaintiff will not rest” (Compl. 4). Some few examples of

the facts alleged in he complaint follow. Plaintiff alleges that

threats such as “if you don’t, we'll kill you,” and abusive

language such as “you idiot” were forced on him during the

CBS Superbowl broadcast (Compl. 5). At times plaintiff

seems to allege a class action lawsuit because the harm

resulting from the television broadcasting was inflicted across

America (ibid.), and at times he alleges that the broadcasting

was targeted at him only. Defendants have successfully

Sa

induced this Country to serious anti-plaintiff mentality. I AM

ONE HOSTAGE” (Compl. 9). Plaintiff also relates facts about

various instances of damages to his car or cars (Compl. 10-13),

an attempted assault on him in the Marina Del Rey showers

(Compl. 15), a lunch order that was erroneously bagged to go

(Compl. 17), and so on.

On March 17, plaintiff also filed a “Notice: Confer &

Meet” in this action, which read as follows:

With authorization, requirements of Civil L.R. 7-10(b) enables

plaintiff filing Expedited Motion on or about 03-03-2001, An

addition of plaintiffs dire situation because of defendants on

biects invidi liscrimination off . hee

meet an confer an resolve matter on 03-28-2001 inside Ladds

Thai-American Cuisine at 1225 La-Playa at Lincoln San

Francisco, Calif. 94122 11:45 a.m. Be there.

On March 8, plaintiff filed a waiver of service of summons

form that he had mailed to the defendants.

Even where the filing fee is paid, a district court may

dismiss a complaint sua sponte if a complaint is frivolous or

wholly without merit or fails to name a proper defendant. 28

U.S.C. 1915(e)2)(B); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1106 (9™ Cir. 1995): A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an

arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Where the complaint alleges facts

that are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or

“delusional” it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). If the pro se plaintiff

can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the

court must give him or her leave to do so. Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9™ Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if

repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court may dismiss

without leave to amend, and even dismiss with prejudice. See

Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106.

6a

Additionally, federal courts have the inherent power to

regulate the activities of vexations litigants. De Long v.

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

power of 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), courts may restrict litigants with

abusive and lengthy histories from filing further actions. /bid.

A court may restrict such litigants’ future filing of actions or

papers provided that it (1) gives the litigant an opportunity to

oppose the order before it is entered; (2) creates an adequate

record for review; (3) makes substantive findings as to the

frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions; and (4()

drafts a sufficiently tailored order. Jd. at 1145-48.

Accordingly, on March 13, 2001, the Court issued an

order to show cause giving notice to plaintiff that he was

required to address the following questions in order to avoid

dismissal:

1. Why the complaint should not be dismissed as to all

plaintiffs other than Andrew Monaghan, the only named

individual to sign the complaint and other documents in the

case. A non-attorney may appear only in his own behalf. Cato

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9™ Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9 Cir.

1987).

2. Why the complaint should not be dismissed as to all

plaintiffs for lacking any arguable basis either in law or in fact

and for being so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be

absolutely devoid of merit.

3. Why plaintiffs should not be declared vexatious

litigants and barred from filing further actions in this court

with respect to these defendants and with respect to these or

substantially similar claims without pre-filing review.

Plaintiff Andrew Monaghan filed a written response to

the order to show cause on March 29, 2001. He also appeared

before the Court on April 12, 2001. He once again stated his

7a

view of the urgency of his claims, as he did in his various

complaints. He did not, however, explain to the Court’s

satisfaction why the complaint was not frivolous or why he

should not be barred from filing future related actions.

Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and without merit.

Further, plaintiff's claims are “so attenuated and unsubstantial

as to be absolutely devoid of merit” such that the action thus

falls within the “wholly insubstantial” doctrine. Neitzke, 490

U.S. 319 at 327 n.6 (quotations omitted); Cook v. Peter Kiewit

Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9™ Cir. 1985). As discussed

above, they are also duplicative of claims that have been

previously dismissed. Plaintiff has an abusive and lengthy

history of filing these actions against media and entertainment

personalities and organizations, and, when the cases are

dismissed, simply re-filing them.

Plaintiff has not shown ( and the Court sees no reason

to believe) that any of his claims can be cured through

amending the complaint. The complaint will therefore be

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is free to appeal this

dismissal and to pursue his other dismissed claims on appeal,

but he may not re-file those claims in this Court. Additionally,

in light of plaintiff Andrew Monaghan’s history of filing these

frivolous claims, he qualifies as a vexatious litigant in this

district.

In plaintiff Andrew Monaghan’s response to the order

to show cause, he explained that plaintiffs Jessica and

Jacqueline were his daughters and that they were minors when

Case No. C 98-03086 CAL was filed. Given that plaintiffs

Jessica and Jacqueline did not sign the complaint or personally

file anything with the Court, the Court finds that this is

sufficient reason not to declare them vexatious litigants.

Plaintiff Andrew Monaghan is cautioned, however, that he may

not circumvent the bar against his filing future related actions

by filing those actions in his daughters’ names.

Serene a ere wer semen: |S) FE

8a

Because the Court has found that he is a vexatious

litigant under De Long, plaintiff Andrew J. Monaghan is

hereby enjoined from filing any further actions against any

defendant named in cases C 98-03086 CAL, C 00-00374 CW,

C 00-03345 JL, C 00-04734, MMC, C 00-00566 PJH, or C 01-

00938 WHA, or arising from the same claims sued upon in

those actions, without first obtaining leave of the General Duty

Judge of this court. In order to file such action, plaintiffs must

make application for leave and the paper shall bear the caption:

“Application Seeking Leave to File.” The application shall

include a list of all the cases plaintiff has filed in this and other

courts and the nature of the claims in those actions, and shall

be supported by a declaration by plaintiff stating that (1) the

matters asserted in the new complaint or papers have never

been raised and disposed of on the merits by any court; (2) the

claim or claims are not legally frivolous or made in bad faith;

and (3) he has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts

and the investigation supports his claim or claims. A copy of

this order shall be attached to any application. Failure fully to

comply with this order will be sufficient grounds for denial of

the application. Plaintiff may, no earlier than April 1, 2005,

petition the court to lift this pre-filing review order, setting

forth the reasons why the order should be lifted.

This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court

SHALL NOT file any new action by plaintiff Andrew J.

Monaghan without pre-filing review by the General Duty

Judge in accordance with this order. A copy of this order

SHALL be filed in each of the cases enumerated on pages one

and two of this order. Judgment SHALL be entered and the

Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2001. /s/William Alsup

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

9a

FILED

United States District Court

Northern District of California

APR 12, 2001

RICHARD W. WIEKING

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW J. MONAGHAN, No. C01-00938 WHA

JESSICA M. MONAGHAN, and

JACQUELINE ST.J. MONAGHAN,

Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT

V.

A. TREBEX, O. WINFREY, R.

EBERT, G. KEMP, D. RAINS,

D. ONO, D. SAWYER, M. ISNER,

and P. SAJAK,

Defendants.

/

For the reasons stated in the accompanying order

dismissing complaint, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of

defendants.

The Clerk of the Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2001. /s/William Alsup

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

10a

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

MAY 28, 2002 ae

CATHY A. CATTERSON

Clerk

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW J. MONAGHAN, __ No. 01-16560

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. CV-01-00938-WHA

and MEMORANDUM‘

JESSICA MONAGHAN; et al.,

Plaintiffs

, f

A. TREBEX; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

/

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to

or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit

Rule 36-3.

lla

Submitted May13, 2002**

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and WARDLAW,

Circuit Judges.

Andrew Monaghan appeals pro se the dismissal of his

“invidious discrimination” action against various - television

personalities and entertainment executives and the district

court’s order designating him as a vexatious litigant. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9" Cir. 1998). We review

the entry of a vexatious litigant order for abuse of discretion.

De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9™ Cir. 1990).

We affirm.

Monaghan’s claim that he is the object of a nationwide

conspiracy, wherein various television personalities terrorize

him over the airwaves with verbal threats and menacing

gestures, lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact, and is

therefore frivolous. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (o™

Cir. 1996). The district court properly dismissed without leave

to amend, because amendment would be futile. See Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9" Cir. 1995).

To maintain general access to the courts while

safeguarding against abusively excessive litigation, a court

must satisfy four prerequisites before entering a vexatious

litigant order: “(1) a plaintiff must be given adequate notice to

oppose a restrictive pre-filing order before it is entered; (2) a

trial court must present a adequate record for review by listing

** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral 7

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Monaghan’s request

for oral argument is denied.

ee

12a

the case filings that support its order: (3) the trial court must

further make substantive findings as to the frivolousness or

harassing nature of the plaintiff's filings; and (4) the order must

be narrowly tailored to remedy only the plaintiff's particular

abuses.” O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9 Cir.

1990).

Monaghan was deemed a vexatious litigant after

receiving notice and appearing at a show-cause hearing. The

district court found Monaghan’s claims to be duplicative of

_ equally fanciful allegations filed with the court in seven other

cases involving many of the same defendants- The district

court’s requirement that any future complaints by Monaghan

must undergo pre-filing review is appropriately ne-tow. On

this basis, the district court acted within its discretion in

entering the vexatious litigant order. See DeLong v.

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-49 (9™ Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

13a

FILED AND ENTERED

MAY 28, 2002

JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-16560

CT/AG#: CV-01-00938-WHA

ANDREW MONAGHAN

Plaintiff-Appellant

and

JESSICA MONAGHAN;

JACQUELINE MONAGHAN

Plaintiffs

V.

A. TREBEX; O. WINFREY; R. EBERT; G. KEMP; D.

RAINS; D. ONO; D. SAWYER; M. ISNER; P. SAJAK

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California (San Francisco).

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the Transcript of

the Record from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California (San Francisco) and was duly

submitted.

ee

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now here

ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the

said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is AFFIRMED.

l4a

ORIGINAL FILED

United States District Court

Northern District of California

FEB 14, 2001

RICHARD W. WIEKING, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER: C 01 0566 PJH

TO: Alex Trebex, Oprah Winfrey, Rodger Ebert, Gart Kemp,

Dallas Rains, David Ono, Dian Sawyer, Pat Sajak, Michael

Isner, Tracy Savage, Chuck Henry, Fritz Coleman, Rich

Romero, Katie Kurick, Kretchen Carr, Jonathan Elias, Bill

Schnere, Russ Mitchell, Dan Rather

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve

upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Mr. Andrew John Monaghan, Pro Se

P.O. Box 5742

Playa Del Rey, California 90293

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you,

within 20 days after service of this summons upon you,

exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment

by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in

the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk

of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.

RICHARD W. WIEKING ;

CLERK Feb 5, 2001

/s/Mary Ann Buckley

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK

1Sa

FILED

United States District Court

Northern District « “California

FEB 15, 2001

RICHARD W. WIEKING, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW J. MOAGHAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C-01-0566 PJH

Vv.

ORDER

ALEX TREBEK, et al.,

Defendants.

/

TO THE PARTIES AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Plaintiff filed this action on February 5, 2001. The

court has reviewed the complaint, and finds that it should be

interpreted as a notice of appeal of case No. C-00-4734 MMC,

in which judgment of dismissal was entered on January 18,

2001. Accordingly, the clerk is directed to close the file of this

case, which is hereby DISMISSED, and to process plaintiff's

notice of appeal in the earlier-filed case.

In addition, the docket indicates that plaintiff paid a

filing fee of $150.00 when the “Complaint” in this case was

filed and the new case number was assigned (Receipt No.

3318812). The clerk is hereby directed to refund the full

amount of the filing fee to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15,2001 —/s/Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record, Judge Chesney, Tracy Lucon, Finance

Clerk

l6a

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

APR 6, 2001

CATHY A. CATTERSON

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW MONAGHAN

Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 01-15454

DC No. CV-01-00566-PJH

v. ; Northern California

(San Francisco)

ALEX TREBEK:; et al.,

ORDER

Defendants-Appellees.

/

’ Appellants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal is

granted. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42(b).

A certified copy of this order sent to the district court

shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

For the Court:

CATHY A. CATTERSON

Clerk of the Court

/s/Linda K. King

Linda K. King

Deputy Clerk

pro 4.2

17a

ORIGINAL FILED

United States District Court

Northern District of California

APR 16, 2001

RICHARD W. WIEKING

Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW J. MONAGHAN, et al., No. C 00-3345 JL

Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL

V.

ALEX TREBEK, et al.,

_ Defendants.

/

This matter was on the court’s calendar for Case

Management Conference on December 20, 2000. Plaintiff

Alexander Monaghan appeared pro se. Luann L. Simmons,

O’MELVENY & MYERS, appeared specially on behalf of

Defendant Sony. No other defendants appeared. Plaintiff

consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court dismissed the case by a

verbal order from the bench at the Case Management

Conference, but hereby presents the reasoning behind the

order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims to have been homeless since 1997. He

presently lives in his van, at Lincoln Boule4vard and LaPlaya,

not far from Ocean Beach in San Francisco. His allegations are

summarized below.

18a

He alleges that the clerk at a “deli across the street from

United States District Court Northern District California

Federal Building” gave him his lunch order in a bag, implying

tha he should take it and leave. He nevertheless then sat down

at a table and ate his lunch. On June 5, 2000, “Riberti” a

newscaster for CBS Channel 5 broadcasting live from an

elementary school saw Plaintiff and stated “get out of town.”

Plaintiff complains also that television personalities

such as Alex Trebek, Oprah Winfrey and Diane Sawyer can

see him through the television screen, observe him against his

will, and make threatening gestures and speak to him. Plaintiff

claims a cause of action for invasion of privacy due to the

defendants’ seeing and hearing him through his television and

for some form of libel by their ruining his reputation and that

of his daughters. Plaintiff has two daughters, ages 190 and 20,

whom he has not seen since December of 1984.

He claims the police have stopped his car and searched

it because of what they see about him on television. Plaintiff

believes that defendants have incited a man named Bear to

follow him while carrying a concealed knife. He also describes

other incidents where cars have followed his van and unknown

assailants have thrown rocks at it.

He asks for $500 million in damages.

ANALYSIS

The Complaint was filed September 14, 2000. Plaintiff

should properly have served at least one Defendant by January

14, 2001 as required by Rule 4(m). The proof of service is

defective because no summons was issued and there is no

indication either that personal service was made on the

defendants or that the addresses where the copies of the

complaint were mailed are’ where the agents for service of

process are located. Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The attorney who appeared specially for Sony at the Case

19a

Management Conference had been notified that the complaint

was received in the mail, but no proper service on the

corporation was made. No other defendants appeared,

specially or otherwise.

The court has discretion to dismiss the complaint with

leave to amend, after the time for service has run. However,

Plaintiff's pleading and his verbal responses at the Case

Management Conference indicate to the court that Plaintiff's

allegations are based on delusions rather than reality. Rule

8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that in order to

state a claim for relief a plaintiff must set forth a short and

plain statement of the grounds both for the court’s jurisdiction

and on which plaintiff is entitled to relief. There is nothing

which this court or any other court can do which will relieve

Plaintiff. Accordingly, for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed

with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

DATED: April 16, 2001

/s/James Larson

James Larson

United States Magistrate Judge

20a

Andrew Monaghan

P.O. Box 5742

Playa Del Ray, CA 90293

May 27, 2002

United States Attorney General

950 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: Forced Violence, Threats

Dear Sir:

This person, Christopher, around 7:55 a.m., 05/27/02, on NBC

break off from Today Show, to local news, live out of Burbank,

California, Studio intentionally aggrieved me. The person is

NBC weather broadcaster representation demanding for your

intervention. Here’s why. Regardless at the end of the weather

report Christopher said, “Stay away from there; it’s got the

plague.” What has me dangerously angry is then he said in a

low voice, no nonsense tone of voice, “KILL IT.” Then Paul,

who talks about traffic, began with “We’re in trouble.” Their

utterances have induced and hampered my well being. Still

homeless and living out of a van and my freedom from forced

violence from on air actual malice and ill will against me is

dangerously a struggle from this ongoing hate against my life.

I'll be merciless if I were you, sir; I tell the truth.

Sincerely and thank you,

/s/Andrew Monaghan

Because of constant abuse, the TV has been buttoned up,

covered. For three weeks it’s on.

2la

28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) may apply because constitutionality of an

act of Congress was drawn and Solicitor General and Attomey

General shall be served. No courts to my knowledge sent

notice as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 451 to the above.

On January 5, 2001, Case #C-004734 filed a notice of

constitutionality and state violations to Justice Department,

Robert Mueller, III, State Attorney General, 455 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California.