Nos. 04-15156 & 04-15333
            ________________________________________
                                
              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
           __________________________________________
                                
FRED KNOX,

     Plaintiff-Appellant,
 v.

JOHN POTTER, United States Postmaster General; RICH LENA; GUY ONO;
VIRGINIA LABSON; CHARLIE WAMBEKE, of San Mateo Support Services
Union; JEANNE M.L. PLAYER, Administrative Judge; CELE GUITERREZ, and
FRED ALAVARA,

     Defendants-Appellees.
     _______________________________________________________
                                
        On Appeal from the United States District Court 
            for the Northern District of California
                       No. 3:03-CV-00229 
     _______________________________________________________
                                
         BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JEANNE M.L. PLAYER
         OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
     _______________________________________________________
ERIC S. DREIBAND              EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
General Counsel                         COMMISSION
                              Office of General Counsel
VINCENT J. BLACKWOOD          1801 L Street, N.W., Room 7030
Acting Associate General Counsel   Washington, D.C. 20507
                              (202) 663-4724
CAROLYN L. WHEELER       
Assistant General Counsel          
                              
ANNE NOEL OCCHIALINO     
Attorney

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                       PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .   iv   
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .     1
STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . .  . . . . . . .  . . .    3
     1.   Nature of the Case and Course of Proceedings  .  3
     2.   Statement of Facts . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .  3
          A.   Factual Allegations  . . . . . . . . . .    4
          B.   Procedural Background  . . . . .  . . .     4
               i.   Knox's first three lawsuits . . . .    5
               ii.  Knox's current lawsuit   Knox IV . .   8
               iii.      Knox's subsequent lawsuit   Knox V .     11
     3.   District Court Decision . . . . . . . . . ..     11
     4.   Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . .  .    13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . 14
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .  . . 15

     THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT 
     KNOX IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR WHO SHOULD 
     BE SUBJECTED TO PRE-FILING RESTRICTIONS. . . . .  15

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .  . .   17   
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     19
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE

                     TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
                         FEDERAL CASES 
     DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990)  . 13, 17
       DeNardo v. Murphy, 781 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1986) .  15
       
       Johns v. Town of Los Gatos,                                                                           
       834 F. Supp. 1230 (N.D. Cal. 1993). . . . . . . . . 16, 17
       
       O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990)  .. 15

                       FEDERAL STATUTES 

       28 U.S.C.  185  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
       
       28 U.S.C.  1291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
       
       28 U.S.C.  1343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
       
       29 U.S.C.  158  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6,9

       42 U.S.C.   1985(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6,9

       42 U.S.C.  1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .5,6,9
       
       42 U.S.C.   1986  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .5,6,9

       42 U.S.C.  2000e, et seq.,  . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
       
                             RULES

       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2

       
       
                   STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
                                
     a.     Plaintiff-Appellant Fred Knox ("Knox") asserts that the district court
had jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C.  1343 and 28 U.S.C.  185.  See Op. Br. at 1. 
 Defendant-Appellee Administrative Judge Jeanne M.L. Player of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") contends,
however, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Knox's
claims against her.  No federal statute grants jurisdiction to the district courts to hear
claims of individuals employed by third parties who are dissatisfied with the
EEOC's administrative process.  See EEOC Br. in 04-15333 at pp. 21-23 (arguing
that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Knox's claims against
Judge Player).
     b.        This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's
final order and judgment dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C.  1291. 
     c.        On December 22, 2003, the district court entered an order declaring
Knox to be a vexatious litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions.  (Knox RE Ex.
H (order))  On January 9, 2004, the district court entered final judgment
dismissing Knox's claims against all parties.  (Knox RE(04-15333) Ex. V
(judgment))  On January 20, 2004, Knox filed a timely notice of appeal from the
district court's December 22, 2003 vexatious-litigant order, which was assigned
Case No. 04-15156.  See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); (EEOC RE 8 (notice of
appeal)).  On February 6, 2004, Knox filed a second notice of appeal from the
judgment, which was assigned Case No. 04-15333.  (EEOC RE 9 (notice of
appeal))  On July 12, 2004, this Court consolidated the two appeals.
               STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
     The Commission believes oral argument would not significantly aid the
decisional process in this case because the issues are not complex and are
adequately presented in the briefs. 
                    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
     Whether the district court properly concluded that Knox is a vexatious
litigator because he filed four meritless lawsuits relating to his employment at the
Postal Service, two of which named an EEOC administrative judge as a defendant,
and because he filed his fourth lawsuit after this Court affirmed the dismissal of his
first three lawsuits.
                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE
     1.    Nature of the Case and Course of Proceedings
     This is the fourth pro se lawsuit Knox has filed against his employer,
Defendant-Appellee United States Postal Service ("Postal Service"), and related
defendants.  Like the three lawsuits that have preceded it   and a fifth lawsuit that
has followed it   this lawsuit involves allegations that the Postal Service and other
defendants subjected Knox to discrimination and retaliation.  This is the second
lawsuit in which Knox has sued Judge Player because he was unhappy with how
she conducted the EEOC administrative hearing on his claims against the Postal
Service.  Knox does not allege that he was ever employed by the EEOC.
     2.   Statement of Facts 
     As in all of Knox's lawsuits, this one arises from his employment at the
Postal Service as a Data Control Technician.  Both the factual allegations and the
convoluted procedural history involved in this action are discussed below.
          A.   Factual Allegations
     Knox claims that he was injured in May of 1995 as the result of a Halon
explosion at the San Mateo Information Center.  (Knox RE Ex. G at 3 (compl))  He
alleges that a number of his supervisors should have known that the Halon
machines were leaking irritating odors and failed to correct the leaks.  (Id.)  Knox
also claims that three co-worker deaths (from a heart attack, suicide, and hepatitis)
may be attributable to the Halon explosion and that the explosion caused physical
injuries for which he has had to seek medical treatment since May of 1995.  (Id. at
3-4)  According to Knox, the Postmaster and his other supervisors acceded to
Knox's request for a medical examination and "caused the plaintiff to be subjected
to examination of his penis and genital area" for no reason.  (Id. at 4)  Knox also
alleges he was denied promotions and training opportunities and that he was
harassed after he complained about his treatment.  (Id. at 6-7)
      Knox alleges that Judge Player conducted an administrative hearing
concerning Knox's discrimination complaint.  (Id. at 8)  According to Knox, Judge
Player failed to adequately investigate his claims of discrimination and refused "to
allow the plaintiff witnesses and witness testimony."  (Id.)  Knox also alleges that
Judge Player refused to hold a hearing on his claim that Cele Gutierrez sexually
harassed him by ordering medical examinations of his genitals.  (Id. at 12)
          B.   Procedural Background
               i.   Knox's first three lawsuits
     Before filing this lawsuit, Knox filed three other actions.  This Court
affirmed their dismissal on December 27, 2001.  (EEOC RE at 4 (Memo.))
               Knox I
     Knox filed his first action, Case No. 98-796 JL ("Knox I"), on March 2,
1998.  (RE Ex. A (compl.))  Judge Player was one of the defendants.  (Id.)  The
other defendants included the United States Postal Service, Postmaster General
William J. Henderson, Manager Rich Lena, Supervisor Bob Long, Personnel
Assistant Susy Nakai, Supervisor Tom Nesbitt, Computer Systems Administrator
Dennis Williams, Manager Cele Gutierrez, Supervisor Roger Hisle, Charlie
Wambeke (the former President of the San Mateo Area Local, American-Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO Local 6669), and the San Mateo Information Service
Center of the United States Postal Service ("San Mateo Center").  (Id.)  Knox I
alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  2000e,
et seq., 42 U.S.C.  1981, 42 U.S.C.  1985(2), 42 U.S.C.  1986, and 29 U.S.C.  
 158(b) for racial discrimination, retaliation, unfair labor practices, breach of
contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and violations of the Veterans Preference Act.  (Id.)
     As to Judge Player, Knox alleged that she was biased, denied relevant
subpoena records requests, split the case into two separate cases, denied Knox the
opportunity to present witnesses, and allowed the defendants to enter all evidence,
records, and witnesses in their favor.  (Id. at 14)  Knox also alleged that the EEOC
hearing and investigation were corrupt and that his appeals from the hearing were
not timely decided.  (Id.)
     In a July 8, 1998, order, the district court dismissed with prejudice Knox's
claims against the EEOC and Judge Player.  (EEOC RE at 1-3 (7/8/98 order))  The
court found that Congress had not created an express or implied cause of action
against the EEOC by employees of third parties.  (Id.)  The court also found that
Knox failed to allege specific facts to support his claims under 42 U.S.C.  1981,
1985(b), and 1986 and that these charges were not properly brought.  (Id.)  Finally,
the court ruled that Knox had failed to allege any facts to support his claim under
29 U.S.C.  158(b).  (Id.)
     As discussed below, the district court later consolidated Knox I, II, and III,
and this Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Knox's claims against the
EEOC and Judge Player.
               Knox II
      One year after filing Knox I, Knox filed his second lawsuit, Case No. 99-
1527 JL ("Knox II").  (Knox RE(04-15333) Ex. B (compl.))  Neither Judge Player
nor the EEOC was a defendant.  The defendants in  Knox II were otherwise the
same as in Knox I, except that Knox added his co-worker, Fred Alvara.  (Id.; Knox
RE at Ex. H at 5 (order)); Knox II alleged many of the same causes of action as
Knox I and added a few new ones.  Knox's claims included racial discrimination,
retaliation, unfair labor practices, assault, battery, interference with contract,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and hiring co-workers to harass,
retaliate, and stalk Knox.  (Id.)  The factual allegations of Knox I and Knox II were
largely identical.  (Id. at 5-6)
               Knox III
     Seven months after Knox filed Knox II, he filed his third lawsuit, Case No.
99-4675 JL ("Knox III").  (Knox RE Ex. H at 7(order); Knox RE Ex. C (compl.)) 
Again, neither Judge Player nor the EEOC was named as a defendant.  (Knox RE
Ex. C (compl.))   Knox III alleged claims against Postmaster General William J.
Henderson, the San Mateo Center, and co-worker Vic Caparros.  Similar to Knox I
and Knox II, the causes of action in Knox III include racial discrimination and
retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress arising from Knox's employment at the Postal Service.  (Knox
RE Ex. H at 7-8 (order); Knox RE Ex. C (compl.))
     Eventually, the district court ordered that Knox I, Knox II, and Knox III
were related.  (Knox RE Ex. H at 9 (order))  On October 6, 2000, the district court
entered an order disposing of all remaining claims against all remaining defendants
in all three cases.  (Id. at 9-10)  Knox appealed.  After ordering that all three cases
be consolidated, this Court affirmed the dismissal of Knox's claims, including the
dismissal of his claims against Judge Player for failure to state a claim for which
relief could be granted.  (Id. at 10-11; EEOC RE at 4 (order))  This Court later
denied Knox's petition for rehearing, and the Supreme Court denied Knox's
petition for certiorari.  (Knox RE Ex. H at 11(order))
               ii.  Knox's current lawsuit   Knox IV
     On January 16, 2003, Knox filed this lawsuit ("Knox IV").  (Knox RE Ex.
G)  The defendants have all been named at least once in Knox's previous three
lawsuits.  Besides Judge Player, the Defendants include Postmaster John Potter,
Rich Lena, Guy Ono, Virginia Labson, Charles Wambeke, Cele Gutierrez, and
Fred Alarva.  (Id. at 1)  The factual allegations are nearly identical to those in
Knox's previous three lawsuits.  (Id. at 1-16; Knox RE Ex. H at 8-9 (order))
     As in Knox I, Knox II, and Knox III, Knox alleges violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  2000e, et seq., the Veterans Preference
Act, Pub. L. 103-353, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 42 U.S.C.  1985(2), 42 U.S.C.  1986,
and 29 U.S.C.  158(b).  (RE Ex. G at 2 (compl.))  Knox's claims are for racial and
sexual discrimination arising from the Halon gas explosion and subsequent medical
exam, racial discrimination arising from a failure to train and promote him,
retaliation, unfair labor practices, breach of contract, violation of the Veterans
Preference Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and sexual harassment.  (Knox RE Ex. G (compl.))
     Specific to Judge Player, Knox alleges in Count I ("Racial and Sexual
Discrimination, Halon Explosion Injuries and Subsequent Examination") that she
was an administrative judge acting in the course and scope of her employment. 
(Id. at 3)  In Count III ("Retaliation"), Knox alleges that Judge Player failed to
adequately investigate his complaints by "failing and refusing to allow the plaintiff
witnesses and witness testimony."  (Id. at 7-8)  In Count IV ("Unfair Labor
Practices"), Knox alleges that each defendant failed to act in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.  157.  (Id. at 8-9)  In Counts V ("Breach
of Contract") and VI ("Violation of Veterans Preference Act"), Knox alleges that
the defendants conspired to breach all covenants of good faith and fair dealing. (Id.
at 9-11)  In Counts VII and VIII, Knox alleges that the defendants are liable for
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  (Id. at 11-13)  Knox also
alleges that Judge Player refused to hold a hearing on his claims of sexual
harassment.  (Id. at 12)
     On April 29, 2003, the magistrate judge issued a related case order finding
that Knox IV was related to Knox I (which was related to Knox II and Knox III). 
(EEOC RE at 13 (docket entry # 18))  On August 22, 2003, the magistrate issued
an order recommending dismissal of Knox's claims with prejudice on the grounds
of res judicata, denial of Knox's motion to disqualify the magistrate, and denial of
Knox's motion for reconsideration of the related case order.  (Knox RE Ex. H at 13
(order))  Knox failed to file any objections to the magistrate's recommendation. 
(Knox RE(04-15333) Ex. U at 1(10/21/03 order); EEOC RE at 14-15 (docket))
     In an October 21, 2003 order, the district court adopted the magistrate's
recommendation.  (Knox RE(04-15333) Ex. U (10/21/03 order))  The court also
ordered Knox to show cause in writing why he should not be deemed a vexatious
litigant.  (Id.)  After reviewing Knox's response, the court found in a December 22,
2003, order that Knox was a vexatious litigant.  (Knox RE Ex. H)  On January 9,
2004, the district court entered judgment against Knox and dismissed his claims
with prejudice.   (Knox RE(04-15333) Ex. V (judgment))  The court also denied
Knox's motions to disqualify the magistrate judge and to reconsider the
magistrate's related case order.  (Id.)  On January 20, 2004, Knox filed a notice of
appeal of the district court's December 22, 2003, vexatious-litigant order, which
was assigned Case No. 04-15156.  (EEOC RE at 8 (1/20/04 notice))  On February
6, 2004, Knox filed a notice of appeal of the district court's January 9, 2004,
judgment.  (EEOC RE at 9 (2/6/04 notice))  On July 12, 2004, this Court
consolidated Knox's two appeals.
               iii.      Knox's subsequent lawsuit   Knox V
     After filing his first four lawsuits, Knox filed a fifth one, Case No. 03-3638
JL ("Knox V").  (Knox RE Ex. H at 13 (order))  Judge Player is not a defendant in
Knox V, although it involves many of the same parties and allegations contained in
Knox's earlier suits.  On February 9, 2004, the district court entered an order
finding Knox V related to Knox IV.  (EEOC RE at 17 (docket entry # 56))  Knox
filed an appeal of Knox V, which is Case No. 04-16200.
     C.   District Court Decision

     In a twenty-page opinion, the district court found  Knox to be a vexatious
litigator.  (Knox RE Ex. H)  In reaching its decision, the court applied this Court's
four guidelines for imposing pre-filing restrictions.  (Id. at 14) (citing O'Loughlin
v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990))
     First, the court determined that Knox had received notice that the court
might curtail his ability to file more lawsuits.  (Id.)   In reaching this conclusion,
the court noted that it had ordered Knox to show cause why pre-filing restrictions
should not be imposed and that Knox had responded.
     Second, the court created a record for review by describing Knox's case
filings that supported the court's order, which included Knox I through Knox IV
(the court did not rely Knox V).  (Id. at 1-14)  
     Third, the court found Knox's filings to be frivolous and harassing.  (Id. at
15-18)  In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that Knox had filed four nearly
identical complaints against "virtually the same defendants" and involving "the
same factual allegations."  (Id. at 16)  As the court noted, this Court affirmed the
dismissal of Knox I, II and III on both procedural grounds and on the merits.  (Id.) 
The court also observed that Knox filed Knox II and Knox III while his earlier suits
were still pending.  (Id. at 17)  The court found that Knox had filed "four lengthy,
convoluted, and fact-laden complaints that have required the expenditure of
considerable resources by both the litigants and the district court." Id.  The court
specifically noted that "Knox has twice named an Administrative Law Judge as a
defendant, on one occasion after he had already been warned that he could not state
a claim for relief against that individual."  (Id.)    
     Fourth, the court issued a remedy for the conduct it had found to be
vexatious.  (Id. at 18)  The court noted that it had proposed in its October 21, 2003,
order that Knox be precluded from filing without prior permission any claims
arising from his Postal Service employment from May 14, 1994, though January
16, 2003.  (Id.)  The court also observed that Knox had responded by arguing that
any pre-filing restrictions, if ordered, should not curtail his ability to file claims
arising from the May 1995 Halon gas explosion, any retaliation claims, or any
claims arising from the union's refusal to pursue his grievances.  (Id.)  The court
rejected Knox's arguments and prohibited Knox from filing, without prior court
permission, any complaints regarding his Postal Service employment from May
1994 to January 16, 2003, including claims that concerned: 1) the May 1995 Halon
gas explosion; 2) the medical examinations conducted in connection with the
explosion; 3) Judge Player's alleged failure to investigate Knox's claims; 4) denied
promotions; 5) retaliation; or 6) the union's alleged failure to pursue Knox's
grievances.  (Id. at 19-20)
     5.   Standard of Review
     This Court reviews a district court's vexatious-litigant order for abuse of
discretion.  See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990).
                      SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
     This Court should affirm the district court's finding that Knox is a vexatious
litigator whose future filings concerning his Postal Service employment should be
subjected to pre-filing review.  In its thorough opinion, the district court properly
applied this Court's four-pronged guideline for imposing pre-filing restrictions.
First, the court gave Knox adequate notice of the restrictions by issuing an order to
show cause why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant, and Knox filed a
written response to the order.  Second, the district court provided an adequate
record for review by detailing Knox's four lawsuits, including this one.  Third, the
court properly found that Knox's filings were frivolous and harassing because they
involved many of the same defendants, claims, and facts, and because Knox filed
his fourth lawsuit after this Court affirmed the dismissal of his first three lawsuits. 
Fourth, the district court narrowly tailored its pre-filing order to require only that
Knox's future filings concerning his employment at the Postal Service from May
14, 1994, through January 16, 2003, be subject to pre-filing review.

                            ARGUMENT
     THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT KNOX IS A
     VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR WHO SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO PRE-
     FILING RESTRICTIONS.

     This Court has recognized that "frivolous claims by a litigious plaintiff may
be extremely costly to defendants and can waste valuable court time."  DeNardo v.
Murphy, 781 F.2d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1986).  Consequently, district courts "bear
an affirmative obligation to ensure that judicial resources are not needlessly
squandered on repeated attempts by litigants to misuse the courts."  O'Loughlin v. 
Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990).  To meet this obligation, district courts
have the inherent authority to order a litigant to seek permission from the court prior
to filing future lawsuits.  See DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147.
     Before ordering pre-filing restrictions, a court must ensure that four
conditions are met: 1) the plaintiff is given adequate notice to oppose the pre-filing
order; 2) the court provides an adequate record for review, including a listing of all
the cases and motions that led the court to conclude that a vexatious-litigant order
was needed; 3) the court makes substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing
nature of the litigant's actions; and (4) the court's order is narrowly tailored.  See
O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.  Here, the district court properly satisfied all four
conditions. 
     First, the district court correctly found that Knox had notice and an
opportunity to oppose the pre-filing restrictions.  (Knox RE Ex. H at 14 (order))  On
October 21, 2003, the court issued an order to show cause why Knox should not be
deemed a vexatious litigant; Knox filed a written response on November 12, 2003. 
(Id.)  Thus, the first condition was met.
     Second, the court provided an adequate record for review.  The district
court's thorough order devotes more than twelve pages to setting forth Knox's
litigious history.  (Id. at 1-13)  Therefore, the second condition was met.
     Third, the court properly found that Knox's filings were frivolous and
harassing.  (Id. at 15-18)  As the court noted, Knox has filed four meritless lawsuits. 
(Id.)  The lawsuits involve many of the same defendants and legal claims and arise
from the same set of facts.  (Id.)  Specifically as to Judge Player, Knox has twice
filed meritless suits against her   even though this Court affirmed the dismissal of
his first lawsuit against her.  (Id. at 17)  Therefore, the district court properly found
that Knox's filings are frivolous and harassing.  See Johns v. Town of Los Gatos,
834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (finding that the plaintiff had shown "a
history of frivolous and harassing litigation and a propensity to continue such
behavior" where he had "filed numerous suits and appeals against the same
defendants, based on the same" facts and claims).
     Fourth, the district court narrowly tailored its pre-filing review order to
address Knox's specific abuses.  (Knox RE Ex. H at 18-19 (order))  The order is
limited to claims arising from Knox's employment at the Postal Service from May
14, 1994, to January 16, 2003, which is the day Knox filed Knox IV.  (Id. at 18)
The order therefore is limited appropriately both temporally and by subject matter. 
Cf. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148 (finding that order prohibiting plaintiff from "filing
any further action or papers in this court" without prior permission was not narrowly
tailored).  Consequently, the pre-filing review order "will relieve the Respondents
from the burden of defending themselves against claims they have litigated over and
over again since" 1998 while "preserv[ing] [Knox]'s right of access to the Court
should he bring forth a nonfrivolous claim in the future."  Los Gatos, 834 F. Supp. at
1232 (ordering pre-filing review of future complaints pertaining to or citing the
Respondents).
                           CONCLUSION
     Knox's frivolous filings have caused the defendants and the courts to waste
resources responding to them.  This Court should therefore affirm the district court's
finding that Knox is a vexatious litigator and that any future filings pertaining to his
Postal Service employment from May 14, 1994, to January 16, 2003, should be
subjected to pre-filing review.  
                    Respectfully submitted,
                    
                    ERIC S. DREIBAND
                    General Counsel
                    
                    VINCENT J. BLACKWOOD
                    Acting Associate General Counsel
                    
                     CAROLYN L. WHEELER 
                    Assistant General Counsel
                    ___________________________
                    ANNE NOEL OCCHIALINO
                    Attorney
                    U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
                    Office of General Counsel
                    1801 L Street, N.W., Rm. 7030
                    Washington, D.C. 20507
                    (202) 663-4724
                    
                    
                    July ___, 2004
                    
                    
                    
                    
                 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

     The Commission believes that this case is also related to Case No. 04-16200
(the Commission is not a defendant in that case).    
     

                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
     
      I, Anne Noel Occhialino, hereby certify that I served two copies of the
foregoing brief this ____ day of July, 2004 by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, to
the following:

Pro Se Plaintiff
Fred Knox                          
27713 Melbourne Ave.                    
Hayward, CA                        
95454     

Counsel for Postal-Defendants
Abraham Simmons
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102

Counsel for Defendant Charles Wambeke
Peter J. Leff
O'Donnell, Schwartz, & Anderson, Ste. 1200
1300 L St., NW
Washington D.C.
20005                              
                                   
                                   

_____________________
Anne Noel Occhialino
Attorney
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, 
Office of General Counsel
1801 L Street, N.W., Room 7030
Washington, D.C. 20507
(P)(202) 663-4724
(F)(202) 663-7090

____________________________________________________________

1. Op. Br. refers to Knoxs opening brief in Case No. 04-15156.  
On July 12, 2004, the Commission filed a response to Knoxs opening
 brief in Case No. 04-15333.  That same day, this Court granted the 
Commissions motion to consolidate these two appeals.  Because the 
Commission has already responded to the issues raised in Knoxs opening
 brief in Case No. 04-15333, this brief responds only to those issues
 raised in Knoxs opening brief in Case No. 04-15156.

2. EEOC Br. in 04-15333 refers to the Commissions July 12, 2004, 
response brief.

3. Knox RE refers to Knoxs excerpts of record filed in Case No. 04-15156.

4. Knox RE(04-15333) refers to Knoxs excerpts of record filed in Case
 No. 04-15333.

5. EEOC RE refers to the Commissions supplemental record excerpts filed
 July 12, 2004, in Case No. 04-15156.