Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00425/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00425-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 * The appeal was filed on June 11, 2009, with the Ninth Circuit and the appellate case number is

09-16156. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WOODY GILLILAND, in his individual capacity,

WILLIAM SMITHERMAN, in his individual

capacity, GEORGIA MARTIN, in her individual

capacity, ALICE YOUNG, in her individual

capacity, SARAH NELSON, in her individual

capacity, KATHY ANN BATISTE, in her

individual capacity, and BERLENE ROBERTS,

in her individual capacity, 

Defendants. /

AND ALL RELATED CASES.

 /

No. C 10-00425 WHA

ORDER REQUIRING

PREFILING REVIEW

Since December 9, 2005, plaintiff E. K. Wade has filed fifteen actions against the

United States Department of Labor (DOL) and its employees. In plaintiff’s last suit, with claims

similar to those raised in this dispute, summary judgment was granted in favor of the DOL. 

Currently, plaintiff has an appeal of that decision pending in the Ninth Circuit.*

 All of these

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 100 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

lawsuits pertain, in one way or another, to allegations of discrimination in connection with the

DOL. The fifteen actions are as follows:

C-05-05087 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-06-00693 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-06-00710 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-06-02209 MJJ Wade v. Chao

C-06-02592 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-06-02610 MJJ Wade v. Chao

C-08-00001 EDL Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-08-00021 EDL Wade v. Chao

C-06-04704 WHA Wade v. United States

C-06-04725 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al. 

C-06-04726 MJJ Wade v. United States

C-06-04829 MJJ Wade v. Chao, et al.

C-06-05431 MJJ Wade v. Chao

C-07-04160 MJJ Wade v. Chao

C-10-00425 WHA Wade v. Gilliland, et al.

This action is one in a series filed by plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment. 

Plaintiff claims that during his tenure with the DOL, Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs, Pacific Region, he was discriminated against in his employment based upon race, age,

and disability. Hilda Solis, the Secretary of the DOL moves to declare plaintiff a vexatious

litigant and impose a pre-filing screening order on any new action brought by him against the

DOL, or related parties arising out of the alleged discrimination he suffered while employed at the

DOL. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides district courts with the inherent power to

enter prefiling orders against vexatious litigants. Weissmann v. Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194,

1197 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned that prefiling measures are an

extreme remedy that should rarely be used. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.

1990). Nevertheless, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 100 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

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, 912 F.2d at 1148. A court may restrict such

litigants’ future filing of actions or papers provided that it (1) gives the litigant an opportunity to

oppose the order before it is entered, (2) creates an adequate record for review, (3) makes

substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions and (4) drafts a

sufficiently tailored order. Id. at 1145–1148, see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,

500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

The DOL and Secretary Solis are not named as defendants in this suit. Whether they have

standing to bring this motion must therefore be addressed. In Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,

411 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2002), the court stated that for the defendants to have the

standing to bring a similar motion, they must have been subject to the injury of vexatious

litigation. Defendants have to show that they are subject to frivolous lawsuits which would

justify their righteous indignation. Id. at 1199. The DOL has proven the repetitive and frivolous

nature of the claims filed by the plaintiff. The DOL probably does not have standing to bring this

suit because they are not named as a defendant. However, recognizing the numerous and

meritless claims of past suits, the Court has the inherent power to enter this prefiling order.

On June 24, 2010, plaintiff was given the opportunity to oppose this motion. Plaintiff did

not challenge the motion, and conceded before the Court that he was a vexatious litigant. He was

given sufficient notice before the order was entered. On May 17, 2010, this case was reassigned

to this Court, because plaintiff declined to proceed before a magistrate judge. Plaintiff has filed

two motions which expressly affirmed his status as a vexatious litigant. “Since Plaintiff lost more

than five pro se lawsuits, sued the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs (DOL/OFCCP) for the same alleged wrong after losing, repeatedly filed

meritless papers, and used frivolous tactical devices . . . Plaintiff hereby AFFIRMS Defendant’s

Motion for Administrative Relief to Declare Plaintiff Vexatious and for a Limited Pre-Filing

Screening Order” (Wade Decl. ¶ 2).

Furthermore, plaintiff has already been declared a vexatious litigant by Judge Charles

Breyer in the Northern District of California for his suits against the Veterans Administration

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 100 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(Brown Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. C). He has also been warned by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in an order

related to his suits against the DOL that the court would deem him a vexatious litigant if his abuse

of the court system were to continue (Brown Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. E). In a deposition in a previous suit,

plaintiff admitted that he had “no factual basis” for his claims and they were “blind speculation” 

(Brown Decl. ¶¶ 39–40, Exh. I). 

This very action shows the frivolousness of plaintiff’s claims. He is suing the same

employees of the DOL for claims that lacked merit and were dismissed in his last suit. 

The dismissal in that case was with prejudice and plaintiff voluntarily agreed to dismissal

because his claims were improper. Plaintiff was also recently visited by the Department of

Justice and the FBI because he sent a threatening email to the assistant U.S. attorney representing

the opposition in this case (Dkt. No. 63). Plaintiff has demonstrated a litigation history against

the DOL and related parties that is both frivolous and harassing.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to seek leave from this Court before filing any additional

complaints against the Department of Labor, any of its employees, or against the United States or

any other government official in connection with his disputes with the DOL stemming from his

prior employment in the Office of Federal Programs Contract Compliance. The Clerk of the

Court is hereby ORDERED to refuse to file any lawsuit brought by plaintiff relating to these same

defendants and subjects, absent express written authorization from this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 100 Filed 06/24/10 Page 4 of 4