United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DECLARING BAMIDELE HAMBOLU A VEXATIOUS
M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bamidele Hambolu and his mother, Lynn Gavin, initiated this
putative class action in the Central District of California,
see Docket No. 1 (Complaint), but it was
subsequently transferred to this District. See
Docket No. 9 (Order at 2). On April 19, 2017, the Court
issued an order in which it barred Ms. Gavin from asserting
her claims because they were, in effect, the same as those
that had led Ms. Gavin to being declared a vexatious litigant
and subject to a prefiling review. See Docket No. 16
(Order at 8). In the same order, the Court granted Mr.
Hambolu's application to proceed in forma pauperis but
dismissed his federal claims with prejudice and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims.
See Docket No. 16 (Order at 8). The Court also
ordered Mr. Hambolu to show cause as to why he should not be
declared a vexatious litigant subject to the same prefiling
order to which Ms. Gavin is currently subject. See
Docket No. 16 (Order at 7).
Hambolu has failed to timely respond to the Court's order
to show cause (“OSC”). Based on the lack of an
opposition, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court
hereby DECLARES Mr. Hambolu a vexatious litigant. Future
pleadings that Mr. Hambolu files shall be subject to a
prefiling review by the general duty judge for this District,
the terms of which are specified in this order below.
& PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
instant action is the seventh in a series of suits filed by
Mr. Hambolu and his mother, Ms. Gavin, in this District. Each
of these suits alleges that Mr. Hambolu and his mother were
wrongfully evicted from the Parkmerced apartments in 2012,
after the family failed to pay allegedly usurious utility
bills. Compl. ¶ 14, 49; see also
Docket No. 16 (Ex. A) (listing cases).
Plaintiffs' cases have been dismissed on various grounds,
including failure to prosecute and failure to state a viable
claim for relief. See id.
January 2016, this Court issued an order in one of the
earlier cases in which it declared Ms. Gavin a vexatious
litigant and thus imposed a prefiling requirement. See
Gavin v. City & County of San Francisco, No.
15-CV-05202-EMC, 2016 WL 126937, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12,
2016). But even after this order, Ms. Gavin - along with Mr.
Hambolu - continued to file suits related to their eviction
from the Parkmerced apartments, including the instant action.
noted above, in the instant case, this Court barred Ms. Gavin
from proceeding with her claims based on its prefiling
review. The Court also dismissed Mr. Hambolu's claims and
further issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) to
Mr. Hambolu as to why he should not be declared a vexatious
courts have the inherent power to enter prefiling orders
against vexatious litigants under the All Writs Act.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (providing that
“[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law”); Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)
(stating that “[t]he All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to
enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants”).
The Ninth Circuit has cautioned, however, that “such
pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be
used” because of the danger of “tread[ing] on a
litigant's due process right of access to the
courts.” Id. Nevertheless, such prefiling
orders are sometimes appropriate because “[f]lagrant
abuse of the judicial power . . . 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. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.
De Long Factors
De Long, the Ninth Circuit set forth the
requirements for entering prefiling orders against vexatious
1. The litigant must be given notice and opportunity to be
heard before the order is entered, see Id. at 1147;
2. The court must compile an adequate record for review,
including a list of all cases and motions leading to the
conclusion that an individual is a ...