United States District Court, N.D. California
SHIRLEY V. REMMERT, et al., Plaintiffs,
JOSH STAUFFER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge.
brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney
Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian Vanessa Osuna. Dkt.
No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by a 2011 vexatious
Plaintiffs Litigation History
is no stranger to this Court. Most recently, the Court
dismissed the complaint in C No. 18-cv-2154 HSG, Remmert
v. Karesh ("Remittert I”), on the grounds
that the complaint's allegations were legally untenable,
frivolous, irrational, wholly incredible and based on
fantastic and delusional scenarios, and violated the
vexatious litigant order to which plaintiff was subject.
See Order of Dismissal, C No. 18-cv-2154 HSG,
Remmert v. Karesh, docketed at Dkt. No. 34 (Mar. 14,
2019) ("Remmert I Dismissal"). The
Remmert I Dismissal detailed plaintiffs extensive
history with this Court and the allegations made in that and
Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered greatly due to a
conspiracy that started in 1970 and continues to this day.
She alleges that family members, government officials, state
court judges, state agency officials, medical personnel, and
violent gangs have conspired to deprive, or have deprived,
Plaintiff, her mother Julia C. Venoya, and her daughter Eva
Al-Zaghari of real estate and other assets. Plaintiff alleges
that the co-conspirators orchestrated the following events in
order to achieve their objective: caused Julia to suffer
battery and in-home invasions, to be subjected to radioactive
iodine treatment, to be kidnapped, to be falsely diagnosed
with schizophrenia, and to contract cancer symptoms; the
deaths of the family members who were in line to inherit from
Patricia King, Julia's sister; a home invasion in 1990
targeting Eva and resulting in Eva being gang-raped and
having her eggs extracted; Eva's marriage to Hisham
Al-Zaghari; Hisham's efforts to destabilize Plaintiffs
family at the direction of Israeli agents; Hisham causing Eva
to develop diabetes; the theft of Eva's child by social
workers; Eva and Julia's commitment to institutional care
facilities; Plaintiff being convinced of misdemeanor counts
related to her efforts to release Eva and Julia from
institutional care; and restraining orders issued against
Plaintiff that prevent her from contacting Eva. See
Dkt. No. 1 at 5-22.
Plaintiff has filed numerous actions in the Northern District
of California related to these alleged events. See, e.g.,
Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Breese, C No. 3:01-cv-01154-CRB;
Venoya v. Remmert, C No. 4:06-cv-06709-CW;
Venoya v. Remmert, et al., C No. 4:07-mc-80117-CW;
People of the State of California v. Remmert, C No.
4:07-mc-80155-CW; Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Bresee, C
No. 3:01-cv-01154-CRB; Remmert v. Pfeiffer, C No.
3:07-cv-00824-CRB; Remmert v. Pfeiffer,
3:07-cv-00825-CRB; Remmert v. Munks, et al., C No.
3:07-cv-03825-CRB; Remmert v. Munks et al., C No.
3:07-cv-03826-CRB; Remmert, et al. v. Sanchez, et
al., 3:07-cv-03827-CRB; Remmert v. Sanchez, et
al., 3:07-cv-03828-CRB; Remmert v. Lee, et al.,
No. 3:17-cv-03856-CRB. In 2001, Chief Judge Marilyn Hall
Patel deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and barred
Plaintiff from filing any complaints, pleadings, or other
papers without a prefiling order of the court regarding inter
alia Eva's conservatorship, the restraining order barring
Plaintiff from contacting Eva, custody of Eva's son
(Plaintiff's minor grandson), or the state court
proceedings related to these issues. See Al-Zaghari, et
al. v. Al-Zaghari, et al., Case No. C 01-2870 MHP, Dkt.
No. 8 (Order, Aug. 15, 2001); Remmert v. San Mateo Cty.
Sup. Ct., et al., Case No. C 07-80085 WHA, Dkt. No. 1
(Order, Apr. 4, 2007); Remmert v. United States, 670
Fed.Appx. 584 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court order
denying Plaintiff leave to file complaint pursuant to
vexatious litigant order). In 2013, the United States Supreme
Court found that Plaintiff had repeatedly abused the Supreme
Court's process, and directed future petitions filed by
Plaintiff in noncriminal matters not be accepted unless the
filing was in the appropriate format and accompanied by the
requisite filing fee. Remmert v. San Mateo Cty. Public
Guardian, 134 S.Ct. 190 (2013).
Remmert I Dismissal at 3-4 (citing to docket entries
in Remmert I).
brings this action on behalf of herself and her daughter Eva
D. Al-Zaghari, whom Remmert identifies as a nominal
plaintiff. The complaint names San Mateo County Deputy
District Attorney Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian
Vanessa Osuna as defendants. She names as interested parties,
Judge George A. Miriam, Judge Quentin Kopp, and President
complaint alleges that there is an ongoing conspiracy between
private individuals, state court judges, and state agency
personnel to enslave plaintiff and her daughter Eva. The
conspiracy has been furthered by the issuance of restraining
orders preventing plaintiff from contacting Eva and the grant
of a conservatorship of Eva.
complaint sets forth five causes of action. First, plaintiff
alleges that Judges Kopp and Miriam, Deputy District Attorney
Stauffer, and Deputy Public Guardian Osuna contributed to the
enslavement of plaintiff and Eva, in violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment, by acting as "agents for the
cause" to seize plaintiff and Eva's property for
wrongful control and to silence their complaints. Second,
plaintiff alleges that, in 2004 through 2008, Judge Kopp
tried to extort her for a marriage with his friend
psychiatrist Harry Verby during the hearings for Case No. CIV
438208 in order to keep plaintiff, Eva, and Case No. CIV
438208 hostage to the judges' plan. Third, plaintiff
alleges that on April 14, 2005, March 21, 2016, and April 11,
2016, Judge Miriam held hearings without providing notice to
either plaintiff or Eva, which deprived plaintiff of a
probate hearing and violated probate rules, in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourth, plaintiff alleges that
Deputy District Attorney Stauffer committed fraud on the
court and obstructed justice when he withheld exonerating
documents in Case No. SM340531A, thereby defaming plaintiffs
character and Eva's capacity, and causing years of
turmoil for plaintiffs family. Fifth, plaintiff alleges that
Deputy Public Guardian Osuna committed fraud when she
presented, without conducting an investigation, written and
verbal testimony supporting her claim that plaintiff abused
Eva and when Osuna stated that plaintiff wanted to help Eva
escape again. Dkt. No. 1 at 12-13.
relief in this action, Plaintiff seeks the voiding of the
reports certifying Eva's conservatorship which she claims
defamed her and Eva; the voiding of the probate court orders
that authorized the conservatorship and issued the
restraining orders; Eva's release, and monetary damages.
Dkt. No. 1 at 14.
Barred by ...