United States District Court, C.D. California
PETER R. TIA, Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE
DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
ALKA
SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June
17, 2019, Plaintiff Peter R. Tia filed a Request to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) along with a purported
civil rights complaint against CoreCivic (formerly the
Corrections Corporation of America), a private corporation
that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers,
the “CoreCivic Mormon Mafias, ” and the Aryan
Brotherhood. (Dkt. Nos. 2-3). In his Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that on May 17, 2019, he posted on Facebook “a
warning to all women out in society not to make the mistake
of sharing any good feelings they may have for [Plaintiff]
online” because the Defendants would rape them.
(Complaint at 5 & Exh. 1). Plaintiff asserts that the
next day his cousin “retaliated” against
Plaintiff for the Defendants by posting “a dialogue
video stating plaintiff is a bitch.” (Id. at
5). Plaintiff contends this action violated his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.). Plaintiff
further alleges Defendants have subjected him to RICO Act
violations by “sex trafficking women who were trying to
have relations with [Plaintiff] at church and other public
places[.]” (Id.). Plaintiff believes
Defendants have subjected him to “vendettas”
because while jailed in Hawaii he once beat up a child
molester “who was tied to Hawaiian Mafias who are tied
to CoreCivic.” (Id.). Plaintiff seeks a
“gang injunction” to remedy the alleged
constitutional violations. (Id. at 6).
Plaintiff's
allegations are obviously frivolous, see Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (A “finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible[.]”), and if this was an isolated matter,
the Court would recommend denying Plaintiff's IFP request
and take no further action. See Minetti v. Port of
Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam) (“A district court may deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from
the face of the proposed complaint that the action is
frivolous or without merit.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(court shall dismiss in forma pauperis case at any
time it determines the action: “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; [¶] (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; [¶] or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”). However, this is far from an isolated
matter. Plaintiff, who by his own admission has filed
“over 100” federal lawsuits (Complaint at 1), has
repeatedly filed frivolous actions in this Court. Nor are
Plaintiff's frivolous filings limited to this Court. For
instance, on April 14, 2016, the Ninth Circuit entered a
pre-filing review order against Plaintiff in an attempt to
stem Plaintiff's “practice of burdening this court
with meritless litigation[.]”[1] See In re Tia,
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No.
15-80222 (Dkt. Nos. 2-3).
“The
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 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);
see also Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d
1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the
inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against
vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of
litigation”); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d
1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We recognize that
‘[t]here is strong precedent establishing the inherent
power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive
litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under
the appropriate circumstances.'” (citation
omitted)). Similarly, Local Rule 83-8.2 provides that the
Court may declare a party to be a vexatious litigant,
stating:
On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity
to be heard, the Court may, at any time, order a party to
give security in such amount as the Court determines to be
appropriate to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions or
other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious
litigant, and may make such other orders as are appropriate
to control the conduct of a vexatious litigant. Such orders
may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not
to accept further filings from the litigant without payment
of normal filing fees and/or without written authorization
from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued upon
such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the
judge may require.
Local
Rule 83-8.2. “Any order issued under [Local Rule]
83-8.2 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.” Local Rule 83-8.3; see also DeLong,
912 F.2d at 1147 (To support a vexatious litigant finding,
“[a]t the least, the records needs to show, in some
manner, that the litigant's activities were numerous or
abusive.”).
“[P]re-filing
orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or
papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements,
such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations
that support the merits of the case.”
Weissman, 179 F.3d at 1197. However,
“pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should
rarely be used.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057;
De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. A pre-filing order is
permissible only if the Court: (1) provides notice and an
opportunity to be heard before entering the order; (2)
compiles “an adequate record for review[, ]”
including “a listing of all the cases and motions that
led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant
order was needed”; and (3) makes
“‘substantive findings as to the frivolous or
harassing nature of the litigant's actions.'”
De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48 (citations omitted);
Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. “Finally, the
vexatious litigant order ‘must be narrowly tailored to
closely fit the specific vice encountered.'”
Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (quoting De Long,
912 F.2d at 1148).
Here,
in addition to the pending matter, Plaintiff has filed a
series of frivolous actions in this Court, including: Tia
v. CoreCivic, CV 18-5387 AG(AGR); Tia v.
CoreCivic, CV 18-5387 ODW(AS); Tia v. Chapman,
CV 18-7926 ODW(AS); Tia v. CoreCivic, CV 18-7928
ODW(AS); Tia v. CoreCivic, CV 18-10103 ODW(AS);
Tia v. CoreCivic, CV 18-10487 ODW(AS); Tia v.
CoreCivic, CV 18-10788 ODW(AS); Tia v. Public
Defender, CV 19-1144 ODW(AS); Tia v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., CV 19-3653 ODW(AS); Tia v. Magallanes,
CV 19-3661 ODW(AS); and Tia v. FBI Office in Kapolei,
Hawaii, 19-5306 ODW(AS). In each of these cases,
Plaintiff's IFP Request was denied and the action
dismissed because of the frivolous nature of the allegations
raised.[2] For instance, many of these actions, like
the pending matter, share common defendants - such as
CoreCivic - and common allegations of a multi-state
conspiracy to harm Plaintiff.[3]As this litigation history shows,
Plaintiff has demonstrated a pattern of filing frivolous
lawsuits against a variety of defendants, and he has left
little doubt this pattern will continue unless protective
measures are taken. Thus, an order preventing Plaintiff from
filing any future pro se complaints against any
defendant, without court permission, may be appropriate.
If
Plaintiff is found to be a vexatious litigant, the Court may
recommend that the District Judge issue an order directing
the Clerk of this Court not to accept for filing any further
pro se complaints or IFP applications from Plaintiff
unless he first obtains leave from a Judge of this Court to
bring the action. If the District Judge issues a vexatious
litigant order, to file any new action, Plaintiff will first
be required to file a motion for leave to file a complaint or
petition. Plaintiff must submit a copy of the Magistrate
Judge's vexatious litigant recommendation, the District
Judge's vexatious litigant order, and a copy of the
proposed complaint or petition with any such motion. If the
Court does not grant Plaintiff written permission to file the
complaint or petition within 30 days of the date of his
motion, permission will be deemed denied.
Plaintiff
is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to
Show Cause within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff must demonstrate to the Court grounds to controvert
the findings above, absent which it is likely that Plaintiff
will be deemed a vexatious litigant.
The
Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order
upon Plaintiff at his current address of record.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------