Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-81/pdf.json

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

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-00228-JD 

ORDER RE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Re: Dkt. No. 732

On September 28, 2016, Defendants Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 

and Beth Miller moved the Court to declare pro se plaintiff Adil Hiramanek a vexatious litigant 

subject to a pre-filing order. Dkt. No. 732. On October 31, 2016, Judge Ronald M. Whyte entered 

an order in a different case declaring Hiramanek a vexatious litigant and imposing narrowly 

tailored pre-filing requirements. Hiramanek v. California Judicial Council, et al., Case No. 5:15-

cv-4377-RMW, Dkt. No. 34 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016). That order finds Hiramanek to be a 

vexatious litigant in this district for all cases, not just the one before Judge Whyte. Consequently, 

the motion here is terminated as moot. 

The Court notes Hiramanek is engaging in this case in the same kind of litigation conduct 

that led to the vexatious litigant order. If Hiramanek continues to act in that manner, the Court 

will consider expanding the scope of the pre-filing requirements based on an assessment of (1) the 

number and nature of Hiramanek’s court filings, (2) Hiramanek’s motive in submitting those 

filings, and (3) whether Hiramanek’s filings have caused other parties needless expense or 

imposed an unnecessary burden on the courts or court staff. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty 

Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2007); see also De Long v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144, 

1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 769 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the 

meritorious claims of other litigants.”). Hiramanek is also advised that the Court may consider 

other sanctions, including termination of electronic filing permission and monetary sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 769 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2