Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jibreel v. Chin

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 22, 2014

ADAM JIBREEL, Plaintiff,
v.
HOCK SENG CHIN, Defendant. Re: ECF No. 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND REQUIRED TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT BEFORE FILING ANY NEW ACTION

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Adam Jibreel filed a complaint with this Court against Hock Seng Chin, the Consul-General of the Republic of Singapore for San Francisco. ECF No. 1. The complaint restates and repeats a prior complaint in Case No. 13-cv-03470-JST ("2013 Complaint"). See ECF No. 1-1 (asserting that Defendants here are the same as those "mentioned in Dismissed Case 13-cv-03470-JST"). The 2013 Complaint alleges that federal government officials, local law enforcement, the Singapore I.S.D. Secret Police, and contractors waged a campaign to surveil and harm Jibreel. 2013 Complaint at 12-15. It names as defendants members of the executive and legislative branches of the United States and state governments, and members of the government of Singapore. Id.

The Court dismissed the 2013 Complaint with prejudice on June 13, 2014 for failure to state a claim. Case No. 13-cv-03470-JST, ECF No. 53. By filing his current complaint, Plaintiff appears effectively to be appealing the Court's dismissal of the 2013 Complaint with prejudice, and attempting to circumvent that dismissal in violation of Civil Local Rule 3-3(c). See id. Ordinarily, based on the foregoing facts, this Court would simply issue an order to show cause why the present action should be not be dismissed with prejudice.

It turns out, however, that this is not Jibreel's first attempt to relitigate a meritless complaint regarding the same facts. A search of Jibreel's name and various aliases[1] in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records database reveals that this action constitutes Jibreel's eighth apparent attempt to seek redress for having been the subject of a criminal investigation. One attempt took place in the Western District of Washington, one in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the rest in this District. All of Jibreel's complaints have named an array of defendants who either are immune from suit, lack any connection to the underlying facts, or both. All of them have been largely incoherent. And all of them have been found to be without merit.

As discussed more fully below, Jibreel's multiple lawsuits appear duplicative and frivolous. Accordingly, the Court will issue an Order to Show Cause why Jibreel should not be declared a vexatious litigant and required to obtain leave of court before filing any new action.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

"The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants." Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. , 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). "Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants." De Long v. Hennessy , 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). To determine whether a litigant is "vexatious, " courts consider, among other factors, the number and nature of the litigant's court filings, the litigant's motive in submitting those filings, and whether the litigant's filings have caused other parties needless expense or posed an unnecessary burden on the courts or court staff. Molski , 500 F.3d at 1057-58 (applying the factors from Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc. , 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Cir. 1986)).

District courts must examine four factors before entering pre-filing orders:

First, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered. Second, the district court must compile "an adequate record for review." Third, the district court must make substantive findings about the frivolous or harassing nature of the plaintiff's litigation. Finally, the vexatious litigant order "must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered."

Molski , 500 F.3d at 1057 (citing De Long , 912 F.2d at 1147-49).

B. Jibreel's Prior Interactions with the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.