Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01688/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01688-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTER L. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

No. 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DECLARING PETITIONER 

A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO 

PRE-FILING CONDITIONS

(Doc. Nos. 8, 9)

Petitioner Vester L. Patterson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied due 

to petitioner’s failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 8.) The 

findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. 

No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

/////

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and proper analysis.

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 

under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 

certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 

petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability.

In conjunction with the pending findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge also 

issued an order requiring petitioner to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious 

litigant. (Doc. No. 9.) As the magistrate judge noted, petitioner has initiated at least 40 other 

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 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

3

actions in this district alone—none of which have been successful—and already been declared a 

vexatious litigant in the Central District of California. (Id. at 3) (citing Patterson v. Ratelle, Case 

No. 2:99-cv-00369-CM-RC (C.D. Cal. April 29, 1999))). The order to show cause was served on 

petitioner and required him to respond within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the

order. No response has been filed and the time to do so has now passed.

A review of petitioner’s litigation record leaves the court no choice but to conclude that he 

has flagrantly abused the judicial process by filing dozens of frivolous and meritless lawsuits and 

applications for habeas relief. (See Doc. No. 9 at 4) (documenting how petitioner has met the 

standards under O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) and Molski v. Evergreen 

Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) to be declared a vexatious litigant).) This 

behavior cannot be tolerated, see DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“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.”), particularly in a district such as this one where judicial resources are taxed to 

the point of a declared judicial emergency.

1

 Moreover, a vexatious litigant finding, where 

appropriate, may impose pre-filing requirements to new applications for federal habeas relief. 

See Jackson v. Felker, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1172, n. 4 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“As of January 1, 2007, 

this Court determined petitioner was a vexatious litigant due to his abuse of the writ.”) 

Imposition of such pre-filing requirements with respect to any future applications for federal 

habeas relief submitted by this petitioner is fully supported here. (Doc. No. 9 at 3) (“Petitioner 

was declared a vexatious litigant in our neighboring court, the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California, because his seven unsuccessful habeas corpus petitions there were 

deemed an abuse of that court’s process.”).

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), are

adopted in full;

 

1

 See Doc. No. 7 for more information regarding the Eastern District of California’s judicial 

emergency.

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 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

4

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; 

4. Petitioner is declared a vexatious litigant subject to the pre-filing conditions set 

forth below:

a. To file a habeas corpus petitioner or prisoner civil rights complaint, 

petitioner must:

i. Include with the petition or complaint a copy of this Vexatious 

Litigant Order;

ii. Include with the petition or complaint the filing fee or a completed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a certified 

copy of his prison trust account statement;

iii. Use the proper form for a habeas corpus or prisoner civil rights 

action;

iv. Name the proper parties;

v. Clearly and concisely specify the grounds for relief and facts 

supporting each ground;

vi. Include only claims that are the proper subject matter for a habeas 

corpus petition or a prisoner civil rights complaint;

vii. For habeas petitions:

a) include only claims that allege violations of the Federal 

Constitution;

b) show that petitioner is in custody to challenge the 

conviction that the claims arise from;

c) show that any arrest petitioner challenges led to a conviction 

that petitioner is in custody to challenge;

d) prove that petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies 

by having presented the petition’s claims to the California 

Supreme Court in a procedurally proper form, and that his 

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 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

5

direct appeal concerning the conviction being challenged 

has been ruled on by the California Court of Appeal;

viii. For prisoner civil rights complaints:

a) prove that petitioner has exhausted all available prison 

administrative remedies;

b. Upon receipt of any habeas corpus petition or prisoner civil rights 

complaint filed by petitioner, the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark the 

petition “Received”;

c. The assigned judge will then screen the petition to determine if the above 

requirements are met;

d. Only if petitioner meets all these requirements will the court file any future 

habeas petitions or prisoner civil rights complaints submitted by petitioner;

e. All other habeas petitions or prisoner civil rights complaints will be 

returned to petitioner; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 5