Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00685/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00685-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKAL S. RYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARY T. MORGAN, individually, and

as attorney for LEE M. QUICK, and

Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv0685 JAH (CAB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE A COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 47]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a complaint against Christy

Babbitt, Timothy M. Hyden, Matthew S. Toth and Diane Wales for their alleged actions

enforcing civil judgments against Plaintiff. This Court previously issued an order declaring

Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and directing him to seek court approval prior to filing any

action in a federal district court based upon the issues raised in Plaintiff’s prior complaints

discussed in the order. Plaintiff’s request falls within the parameters of that order. 

However, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

challenging the propriety of the vexatious litigant order. See Doc. No. 42. The filing of

a notice of appeal generally divests the court of jurisdiction of the issues involved in the

appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). 

However, the Court may, in its discretion, take action to preserve the status quo if justice

so requires. See McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686

F.2d 731, 734 - 35 (9th Cir. 1982). Enforcement of the vexatious litigant order is proper.

11cv685

Case 3:11-cv-00685-JAH-KSC Document 48 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 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

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to file a complaint should be denied. Plaintiff

fails to establish personal jurisdiction over the proposed parties or venue is proper in this

Court. . This Court previously found Plaintiff’s “attempts to prosecute actions against the

parties in San Diego despite the fact the named defendants are clearly not subject to

personal jurisdiction in California, and the activities giving rise to the causes of actions

happened completely outside this state” abusive. See Order at 10 (Doc. No. 39).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to file a complaint

against Christy Babbitt, Timothy M. Hyden, Matthew Toth and Diane Wales is

DENIED.

Dated: March 10, 2014 JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

2 11cv685

Case 3:11-cv-00685-JAH-KSC Document 48 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 2