United States District Court, C.D. California
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN, Plaintiff,
DARREN J. MANNION et al., Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO FILE WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FULL FILING FEE STATUS SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED AS RULE 11 SANCTION
GAIL J. STANDISH, Magistrate Judge.
This case has sat idle for roughly four years as the Court awaited DeVaughn's state court cases to become final. Ready to start again, the Court has discovered what it believes were gross misrepresentations in the Complaint about DeVaughn's litigation history. Accordingly, the Court orders DeVaughn to show cause why his leave to file without full prepayment of fees should not be revoked because he misrepresented his litigation history under Rule 11, likely to avoid potential 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) denial of leave under the "three-strikes" bar. The Court sets forth its reasoning below. DeVaughn has until July 15 to respond to this Order. The Court will deem a failure to do so as agreement with the Court's reasoning and imposition of sanctions as described below. See C.D.Cal. Local Civ. R. 7-12.
I. DeVaughn's Litigation History (As Described in the Complaint)
The Complaint, filed on September 3, 2010, was lodged with the Court on June 15, 2010 with DeVaughn's signature dated June 6, 2010. [Dkts. 1-1 and 5.] Although DeVaughn is not required to use a particular form to file a civil rights complaint, he opted to use the CV-66 form made available in this District. Section A of that form-titled "PREVIOUS LAWSUITS"-asks a prisoner-plaintiff to state how many federal lawsuits he has pursued while a prisoner, and to describe each lawsuit. [Dkt. 5 at 1.] DeVaughn answered that he brought "4 (four)" lawsuits:
Case No. EDCV-08-1515-ASH (SH), where the court denied leave to proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee because it did not submit the trust fund authorization form;
Case No. 5:04-CV-00677-DSF (SH), where the court dismissed his suit on April 12, 2007 after "[t]he defendants falsely rearrested this petitioner October 31, 2006 to impede the civil action."
Two cases filed in South Carolina that DeVaughn does not have the case number to, the first of which resulted in a defaulting defendant and the second of which was dismissed at the summary judgment stage. He says neither was dismissed as frivolous.
[ Id. ] The Complaint has no attachments listing additional court cases.
II. DeVaughn's Litigation History (Based on the Court's Review)
A search of the Court's federal electronic records reveals a far more litigious past than DeVaughn disclosed in the Complaint. According to the PACER docket entries, DeVaughn has filed approximately twenty-two civil lawsuits (including this one), nineteen habeas petitions (including one pending), and forty-three appeals from 1992 through 2015. [Attachments 1&2.] Because of that litigation history, DeVaughn has been prohibited from "filing any further § 2255 motions" "[o]n his own behalf, " barred from further filings in a closed Ninth Circuit case, and has been described as having a "penchant for filing frivolous pleadings." [ Michael O. DeVaughn v. Ray, Case No. 4:XX-XXXX-XXBF, Report & Recommendation, Dkt. 6 at 4-5 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 1999) (describing prior litigation history).]
I. DeVaughn's Leave to File Without Prepayment of the Full Filing Fee Should Be Revoked Because He Violated Rule 11 by ...