Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01347/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01347-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC MEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. SHAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01347-JD 

ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF 

A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND

SUBJECTING HIS SUBMISSIONS 

TO PRE-FILING REVIEW

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause by April 5, 2019, why he should not be declared a 

vexatious litigant and required to obtain leave of Court before filing any new action. Plaintiff has 

not responded to the Court’s order but has filed two new cases that are frivolous. See Case Nos. 

19-cv-1703; 19-cv-1815. As noted in detail in the order to show cause (Docket No. 3), plaintiff 

has filed 19 incomprehensible complaints in the last few months in this district, where he does not 

reside. All of the complaints have been dismissed because they were unintelligible and frivilous. 

Plaintiff’s repeated filings here are particularly odd because he is housed in Illinois, names 

defendants in Illinois or elsewhere in the country, and none of the cases have any connection 

whatsoever to the Northern District of California. 

Legal Standard

“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). “Flagrant 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.” De Long v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 

(9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit has established “four factors for district courts to examine 

Case 3:19-cv-01347-JD Document 4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

before entering pre-filing orders.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. “First, the litigant must be given 

notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered”; second, the court “must compile ‘an 

adequate record for review’”; third, the court “must make substantive findings about the frivolous 

or harassing nature of the plaintiff’s litigation”; and fourth, “the vexatious litigant order ‘must be 

narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.’” Id. (citing De Long, 912 F.2d at 

1147-49). In considering the third and fourth factors, the Ninth Circuit applies the test from Safir 

v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). See Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the five-factor Safir test provides “a helpful framework for 

applying” factors three and four of the Ninth Circuit’s four-factor standard-i.e., the frivolous or 

harassing nature of the plaintiff’s litigation, and the narrow tailoring of any pre-filing order the 

court enters. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. The Safir test considers:

(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it

entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the

litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant

have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether

the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has

caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an

unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5)

whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and

other parties.

Safir, 792 F.2d at 24.

Discussion

The history of litigation reveals a pattern of frivolous and duplicative lawsuits. As 

described in the order to show cause plaintiff has filed 19, now 21, frivolous and incoherent 

complaints. There is no objectively good faith expectation of prevailing as many of the lawsuits 

seek for plaintiff to marry certain actresses and others state that the World Bank and International 

Monetary Fund are part of a large conspiracy. Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, which 

weighs against declaring him vexatious. Yet, even an unrepresented litigant should understand 

after repeated attempts at pursuing frivolous claims or challenging the same conduct that his 

claims are without merit and should not be pursued. Thus, this factor does not weigh strongly 

against declaring plaintiff vexatious. Finally, plaintiff has placed an inordinate burden on the 

Court. The record reflects that plaintiff regularly files non-meritorious, incoherent complaints. 

Case 3:19-cv-01347-JD Document 4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court personnel must spend significant time and taxpayer resources attempting to understand 

plaintiff’s filings, resources that could otherwise be spent resolving the disputes of the many 

litigants who adhere to court rules and requirements. 

The final Safir factor-whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the Court and 

other parties-overlaps with the narrow tailoring analysis in the Ninth Circuit’s four-factor test.

This Order is narrowly tailored to meet only the goal of relieving this Court from having to 

respond to frivolous complaints that plaintiff may file in the future. Lesser sanctions are 

inadequate to protect the Court, because plaintiff has demonstrated his incapacity to follow the 

rules and requirements of this Court. Specifically, plaintiff’s litigation history demonstrates that 

he has been unresponsive to the Courts’ repeated, clear indications that his complaints are without 

merit. Given this pattern of behavior, the Court finds that nothing less than a pre-filing order will 

prevent the Court from undertaking the burden of responding to plaintiff’s non-meritorious and 

frivolous complaints.

Conclusion

1. Plaintiff, Eric Meyer, is hereby barred from participating in the filing of any 

lawsuit, under this name or any aliases, either alone or with other plaintiffs, in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California, without first obtaining leave of Court.

2. To obtain leave of Court, plaintiff must seek leave in writing to file a new action

and must include with his request (a) a copy of the complaint he proposes to file, and (b) the 

following statement in capital letters on the first page of the request: “THIS PLEADING IS 

SUBJECT TO AN ORDER REQUIRING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A NEW ACTION. 

PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN CASE NUMBER 19-CV-1347-JD, 

THE DUTY JUDGE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THIS SUBMISSION IS 

INTELLIGIBLE AND NON-FRIVOLOUS BEFORE IT CAN BE FILED.”

3. If plaintiff requests leave of court in the manner required by ¶ 2, the Clerk of Court 

shall refer his request to the duty judge, who shall determine whether it states a non-frivolous 

cause of action. If it does, the duty judge shall so advise the Clerk of Court, and the submission 

will be filed and assigned as if no pre-filing order were in place. If the duty judge determines that 

Case 3:19-cv-01347-JD Document 4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the submission is not intelligible, or is frivolous, the Clerk shall not file it and shall instead follow 

the procedures of the following paragraph.

4. If plaintiff participates in the filing of a lawsuit without requesting leave of Court, 

or requests such leave and is denied, the Clerk of Court shall not docket any such submission. The 

Clerk shall advise plaintiff in writing that the submission has not been filed because plaintiff is not 

permitted to participate in lawsuits before this Court without receiving advance permission. No 

filing fee shall be accepted in that case.

5. This order shall not apply to any suit in which a licensed attorney represents 

plaintiff, or to any action in which plaintiff appears as a criminal defendant.

6. This order shall remain in effect until further order by this Court. Plaintiff may

petition for this order to be repealed after two years from the date of this order but must

demonstrate in any such request that he has entirely ceased his practice of filing frivolous

complaints.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01347-JD Document 4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC MEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. SHAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01347-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 12, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Eric Meyer ID: A-North

Chicago Read Mental Health Center

4200 N. Oak Park

Chicago, IL 60634 

Dated: April 12, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-01347-JD Document 4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 5 of 5