Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00653-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

GOOCH, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00653-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS UP TO AND 

INCLUDING DISMISSAL OF THIS 

LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 

FALSE STATEMENTS IN COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 

commencing this action on May 14, 2019. (ECF No. 1). On October 17, 2019, the Court issued 

a Screening Order and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 9). On November 7, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 10).

In Plaintiff’s original and First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff made representations 

under penalty of perjury about the number of previous or pending lawsuits he has brought 

while a prisoner. It appears from publicly available information that these representations were

false. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to submit a statement within 30 days why 

Plaintiff should not be sanctioned. In the alternative, Plaintiff may voluntarily withdraw this 

lawsuit, without prejudice. 

\\\

\\\

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 6
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

I. REPRESENTATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff’s complaints use the form Civil Rights Complaint for this district. That form 

complaint asks information about Plaintiff’s previous or pending lawsuits. It specifically asks

whether Plaintiff has “brought any other lawsuits while a prisoner” and “how many.” It also 

asks Plaintiff to list all other previous or pending lawsuits on an additional page.

In Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on May 14, 2019, Plaintiff has inserted “13” to 

the question of how many other lawsuits he has brought while a prisoner. (ECF No. 1). In 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on November 7, 2019, Plaintiff similarly indicates 

that he has brought 13 other lawsuits while a prisoner. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff fails to list any 

other lawsuits, instead writing “no party herein has been party to any res judicada [sic] is no 

issue.” (ECF No. 1, at p. 1).

Plaintiff’s complaints were filed under penalty of perjury. The form complaint requires 

a declaration at the end of the form stating “I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.” (ECF No. 1, at p. 16; ECF No. 10, at p. 17). Plaintiff signed and 

dated the form following this declaration. Additionally, in both complaints, Plaintiff included 

his own verification stating: “I have read the foregoing complaint and hereby verify that the 

matters alleged therein are true, except for those alleged on information and belief, and as to 

those I believe them to be true. I certify swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 

true and correct.” (ECF No. 1, at p. 16; ECF No. 10, at p. 17).

II. INFORMATION REGARDING PAST AND PENDING LAWSUITS 

FROM PUBLIC RECORD

Based on publicly available records, it appears that Plaintiff’s representations regarding 

his past and pending lawsuits are false.

The Court located and takes judicial notice of the following 34 federal cases Plaintiff 

brought before commencing this action:

1. Hammler v. Montanez, Case No. 1:14-cv-00383 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 17, 2014

2. Hammler v. Davis, Case No. 2:14-cv-02073 (E.D. Cal.), filed September 8, 2014

3. Hammler v. Wright, Case No. 2:15-cv-01645 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 3, 2015

4. Hammler v. Macomber, Case No. 2:15-cv-01913 (E.D. Cal.), filed September 10, 2015

5. Hammler v. Haas, Case No. 2:15-cv-02266 (E.D. Cal.), filed November 2, 2015

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 6
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

6. Hammler v. Pita, Case No. 2:16-cv-01684 (C.D. Cal.), filed March 11, 2016

7. Hammler v. Hudson, Case No. 2:16-cv-01153 (E.D. Cal.), filed May 27, 2016

8. Hammler v. Pita, Case No. 2:16-cv-05754 (C.D. Cal.), filed August 2, 2016

9. Hammler v. Kirkland, Case No. 2:16-cv-01944 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 17, 2016

10. Hammler v. Director of CDCR, Case No. 1:17-cv-00097 (N.D. Cal.), filed January 9, 

2017

11. Hammler v. Aviles, Case No. 3:17-cv-01185 (S.D. Cal.), filed June 12, 2017

12. Hammler v. Alvarez, Case No. 3:17-cv-01533 (S.D. Cal.), filed July 27, 2017

13. Hammler v. Director of CDCR, Case No. 2:17-cv-01949 (E.D. Cal.), filed September 

20, 2017

14. Hammler v. Hernandez, Case No. 3:18-cv-00259 (S.D. Cal.), filed February 02, 2018

15. Hammler v. Alvarez, Case No. 3:18-cv-00326 (S.D. Cal.), filed February 09, 2018

16. Hammler v. Melendez, Case No. 2:18-cv-00588 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 19, 2018

17. Hammler v. Kernan, Case No. 3:18-cv-01170 (S.D. Cal.), filed June 04, 2018

18. Hammler v. Hough, Case No. 3:18-cv-01319 (S.D. Cal.), filed June 18, 2018

19. Hammler v. L. Franklin, Case No. 2:18-cv-05525 (C.D. Cal.), filed June 21, 2018

20. Hammler v. Andrea Grey, Case No. 2:18-cv-09760 (C.D. Cal.), filed November 20, 

2018

21. Hammler v. Lyons, Case No. 1:19-cv-01650 (E.D. Cal.), filed December 21, 2018

22. Hammler v. Clark, Case No. 1:19-cv-00373 (E.D. Cal.), filed January 3, 2019

23. Hammler v. Baugham, Case No. 2:19-cv-00245 (E.D. Cal.), filed February 6, 2019

24. Hammler v. M. Biallas, Case No. 2:19-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal.), filed March 13, 2019

25. Hammler v. Kernan, Case No. 1:19-cv-00497 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 14, 2019

26. Hammler v. Katz, Case No. 2:19-cv-00467 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 14, 2019

27. In Re: Hammler, Case No. 1:19-mc-00019 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 22, 2019

28. Hammler v. Peterson, Case No. 2:19-cv-00524 (E.D. Cal.), filed March 25, 2019

29. Hammler v. Oliveira, Case No. 1:19-cv-00417 (E.D. Cal.), filed April 2, 2019

30. Hammler v. Dejiney Jones, Case No. 2:19-cv-02831 (C.D. Cal.), filed April 12, 2019

31. Hammler v. Gooch, Case No. 1:19-mc-00026 (E.D. Cal.), filed April 15, 2019

32. Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-mc-00028 (E.D. Cal.), filed April 22, 

2019

33. In Re: Hammler, Case No. 1:19-mc-00029 (E.D. Cal.), filed April 29, 2019

34. Hammler v. Hernandez, Case No. 1:19-cv-00616 (E.D. Cal.), filed May 8, 2019

The Court located and takes judicial notice of the following three state cases brought 

before commencing this action:

1. Hammler v. Kirkland, Case No. 34-2016-00197599-CL-PO-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct. 

Sacramento County), filed July 19, 2016

2. Hammler v. Paramo, Case No. 37-2016-00044051-CU-PO-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San 

Diego County), filed December 14, 2016

3. Hammler v. Alternate Public Defenders, Case No. BS129159 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los 

Angeles County), filed June 15, 2017

Based on the decisions of other cases regarding Plaintiff’s litigation history, it is likely 

that this number does not include all previous and pending lawsuits. In at least one of these 

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 6
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

cases, Plaintiff had been declared a vexatious litigant under California law. Hammler v. 

Kirkland, No. 34-2016-00197599-CV (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County), filed July 19, 

2016. On February 21, 2017, the court declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Id. No. 38. That 

court noted at least eight of his cases had been decided adversely to him and that he had another 

nine pending for a total of 17. Id. at 2.

Additionally, in at least one of these federal cases, the defendants had moved to declare 

him a vexatious litigant before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the Court granted that motion 

before Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. Hammler v. Alvarez, No. 3:18-cv-00326-

AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018), filed February 9, 2018. On September 10, 2018—over 

eight months before Plaintiff began this action—Defendants moved to declare him vexatious. 

Id. ECF No. 20. The defendants there attached an exhibit showing Plaintiff had filed 41 cases 

in California state and federal courts. Id. ECF No. 20-2. On August 13, 2019, the court declared 

him vexatious. Id., ECF No. 63. The court noted that “Plaintiff has filed 50 separate cases 

against various prison officials and in various California courts since 2007. Just in the past five 

years, Plaintiff has filed 36 cases.” Id. at 4 (citations omitted).

The Court also located and takes judicial notice of the following eight federal lawsuits 

filed between Plaintiff’s original complaint and the FAC:

1. Hammler v. Gooch, Case No. 1:19-cv-00653 (E.D. Cal.), filed May 14, 2019

2. Hammler v. Cota, Case No. 2:19-cv-01423 (E.D. Cal.), filed June 4, 2019

3. Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-00784 (E.D. Cal.), filed June 4, 2019

4. Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-00785 (E.D. Cal.), filed June 4, 2019

5. Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-01057 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 1, 

2019

6. Hammler v. Diaz, Case No. 1:19-cv-01141 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 20, 2019

7. Hammler v. Compose, Case No. 1:19-cv-01149 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 23, 2019

8. Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-01212 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 30, 

2019

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

“Rule 11 provides for the imposition of sanctions when a filing is frivolous, legally 

unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Simpson v.

Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (footnote omitted). “Although Rule 

11 applies to pro se plaintiffs, the court must take into account a plaintiff’s pro se status when it 

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 6
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

determines whether the filing was reasonable.” Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th 

Cir. 1994). (quoting Harris v. Heinrich, 919 F.2d 1515, 1516 (11th Cir.1990). However, a 

district court “cannot decline to impose any sanction where a violation has arguably occurred 

simply because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se.” Simpson, 77 F.3d at 1177 (citing Warren, 29 

F.3d at 1390). 

In relevant part, Rule 11 reads:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written 

motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating 

it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing 

law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing 

existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so 

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity 

for further investigation or discovery; 

. . .

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the 

court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an 

appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or 

is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm 

must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, 

associate, or employee.

. . .

(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law 

firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order 

has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to 

what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by 

others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an 

order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for 

effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of 

the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the 

violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary 

sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 6
6

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

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) 

before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against 

the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the 

sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Courts can also dismiss actions under their inherent authority as sanctions for falsified 

complaints. Anheuser-Busch, Inc v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir.

1995) (holding dismissal under inherent authority proper when “a party has engaged 

deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings” or 

“willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly 

administration of justice”).

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is thus ordered to show cause why, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as 

well as the Court’s inherent authority, the Court should not sanction Plaintiff for providing 

inaccurate statements under penalty of perjury, with sanctions up to and including dismissal of 

the case. 

In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a notice with the Court that he voluntarily dismisses 

this lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned, with sanctions 

up to and including dismissal of this case, for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11, or file a notice that he voluntarily dismisses this lawsuit.

If Plaintiff fails to file a response, the Court will recommend to a district judge that this 

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 6 of 6