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.

Wilbourn v. Saddleback Memorial Medical Center

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 28, 2018

Harvey L. Wilbourn
v.
Saddleback Memorial Medical Center

         DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DEEM PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND IMPOSE PRE-FILING RESTRICTIONS

          PRESENT: HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

         On February 7, 2018, Harvey L. Wilbourn (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the above-referenced case. Plaintiff has filed a pattern of patently frivolous civil complaints in the Central District of California and the Superior Court of Washington. Included within this Order are the case name and number of Plaintiff's previous actions. This information is from the Central District of California docket and the Westlaw research database. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's prior filings as reflected on the docket. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(c); see also Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (the court may take judicial notice of matters of public record). None of these actions resulted in a judgment favorable to Plaintiff. Moreover, many of them have been dismissed as patently frivolous or for failure to state a claim.

         The Court finds that it is appropriate to warn Plaintiff that he may be deemed a vexatious litigant. This Order places Plaintiff on notice that the Court is considering a vexatious litigant order that will impose pre-filing conditions upon him before he may file any future petition, complaint, or in forma pauperis application with this Court.

         Central District of California Local Rule (“L.R.”) 83-8 governs vexatious litigants. L.R. 83-8.3, “Findings, ” states that a vexatious litigant order “shall be based on a finding that the litigant to whom the order is issued has abused the Court's process and is likely to continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken.” See L.R. 83-8.3. This Court finds, as discussed more fully below, that Petitioner has abused the Court's process and is likely to continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken.

         District courts should enter a pre-filing order only after a “cautious review of the pertinent circumstances.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has set forth four factors that a court must examine before issuing a pre-filing order on a finding that a litigant is vexatious:

[F]lagrant 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. Thus, [we have] outlined four factors for district courts to examine 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.

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court will address the four factors below.

         1) Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard

         The Court hereby notifies Plaintiff that it is considering a vexatious litigant order for the reasons set forth in this Order. As discussed below, Plaintiff must file a written response to this Order within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

         2) An Adequate Record For Review

         The Court attaches copies of either the docket list of cases, by case name and number, or the first page of a particular case's docket record, to demonstrate the multiple cases filed by Plaintiff since 2002. A review of these complaints on the electronic docketing system for the Central District of California, and ...


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.