The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth, Magistrate Judge
DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PRESENT: HON. JEAN P. ROSENBLUTH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Joe Roper n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None present None present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
For the reasons discussed below, Defendant Lori G. McDonald is hereby ordered to show cause why (1) the Magistrate Judge should not report and recommend to the Chief Judge that her in forma pauperis request in the pending action be denied and (2) she should not be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing future IFP requests or other papers without prepayment of the full filing fee or approval of a judge of this Court. McDonald is ordered to comply with this OSC by (1) filing a written response to it no later than noontime, June 26, 2012, and (2) appearing in person before the Court at 10:30 a.m., June 28, 2012, in Courtroom 6A of this Court, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. McDonald is notified that her failure to timely and completely comply with any aspect of this OSC will result in her IFP request being denied and her being declared a vexatious litigant. No further notice will be given.
McDonald has on at least five prior occasions, beginning in October 2011, sought to remove this state-court unlawful detainer action to this Court, and each time her IFP request has been denied and the case has been remanded back to state court with an order explaining why she may not remove the case to federal court. See Wells Fargo N.A. v. Lori G. McDonald, Case Nos. 11-1569-UA-DUTY, 11-1610-UA-DUTY, 11-1828-DOC-PLA, 12-0008-DOC-PLA, and 12-0548-UA-DUTY. On January 13, 2012, the state court ordered her to "stop filing removal petitions." Two days earlier, a district judge of this court had also warned her to stop her frivolous removal actions:
This is Defendant's fourth attempt to remand the same straightforward unlawful detainer action. Each such removal attempt has been frivolous, and it is now clear that Defendant's efforts to remove are a bad faith attempt to delay the inevitable. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to stop filing removal petitions for this case. If Defendant fails to comply with this order, this court will immediately issue an order to show cause why Defendant's conduct has not violated Rule 11(b).
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course, bars a litigant from filing documents for improper purposes, such as delay. Nonetheless, McDonald has twice tried to remove the same action to federal court since the Court's January 11 order.
Further, because McDonald is likely to continue to abuse the Court's process unless protective measures are taken, the Court issues this order to show cause why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to Local Rule 83-8. "[T]he goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests." Whitaker v. Superior Court of S.F., 514 U.S. 208, 210, 115 S. Ct. 1446, 1447, 131 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1995). Plaintiff's repetitious filing of frivolous removal actions and IFP requests has abused and misused the Court's limited resources, compromised the goal of fairly dispensing justice, and abused the judicial process. Her actions appear unlikely to stop without intervention by the Court.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...