Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01986/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA L PETTERUTI,

Plaintiff,

v

DAVID GRANT MEDICAL CENTER et al,

Defendants. /

Nos C-99-0542 VRW

C-00-3230 VRW

C-04-1986 VRW

C-04-3063 VRW

C-05-1140 VRW

C-05-1650 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Christina Petteruti (“Petteruti”) has filed a

total of six complaints (four of which have been dismissed)

asserting claims arising out of identical factual circumstances. 

In dismissing Petteruti’s third and fourth cases by order filed

March 28, 2005, the court admonished her that “further litigation

of this issue * * * may result in the court initiating proceedings

to declare [Petteruti] a vexatious litigant.” No 04-3063, Doc #19

at 7:10-14. Petteruti filed two further cases, Nos 05-1140 and 05-

1650, in state court and in this court, respectively. Defendants

removed the former. These cases also appeared to arise out of

identical factual circumstances. Accordingly, the court ordered

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petteruti to show cause why the court should not declare her a

vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order. No 05-1140, Doc

#6 (citing De Long v Hennessey, 912 F2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir 1990)). 

The United States was invited to submit a brief amicus curiae. The

court has received the parties’ submissions and for the reasons

that follow permanently enjoins Petteruti from filing similar cases

and dismisses Nos 05-1140 and 05-1650 as barred by res judicata.

I

The court will first recount the specifics of the six

cases that Petteruti has filed.

No 99-0542 concerned Petteruti’s allegation that she was

infected by hepatitis B when she was vaccinated in June 1994 at

David Grant Medical Center (DGMC), a government-operated medical

facility at Travis Air Force Base. The court granted defendant’s

motion to dismiss without prejudice on the ground that Petteruti

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal

Tort Claims Act (FTCA). No 99-0542, Doc #8.

No 00-3230 concerned the same vaccination (actually a

series of three shots). In that suit, Petteruti contended that she

began to feel sick after the first shot, in June 1994. She had

tested positive for hepatitis B in August 1991, negative at the

time of the June 1994 vaccination shot and positive in late 1995,

following the last of the three-shot regimen. No 02-3230, Doc #48

at 2-4. At summary judgment, defendants’ expert opined that

Petteruti had likely contracted a mild case of hepatitis B

perinatally in her native Korea (or in southeast Asia; the court’s

opinion is somewhat unclear), a common occurrence. Id at 14-15. 

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In defendant’s expert’s opinion, antibodies from this early case

likely caused the positive test in 1991; the 1994 test could have

been negative because antibody levels had dropped below the test’s

threshold for a positive result; and the vaccination triggered an

immune response that boosted antibody levels and led to the 1995

positive result. Id. Petteruti offered no expert testimony to

refute this. The court ultimately granted summary judgment on the

ground that Petteruti had failed to establish that defendant’s

conduct was the proximate cause of her injury (because the 1991

test accurately indicated that she had been infected with hepatitis

B long before she was vaccinated at DGMC), and, alternatively, on

the ground that her claim was barred by the FTCA’s statute of

limitations. Id at 16.

The complaints in Nos 04-1986 and 04-3063 are virtually

identical (the former was filed in this court; the latter was filed

in state court and removed to this court). They presented a new

permutation of claims based on the same underlying events. The

complaints border on the incomprehensible, but the court construed

the core allegation to be that, notwithstanding the 1991 test

result as reported in the court’s order granting summary judgment

in No 00-3230, Petteruti was not in fact infected with hepatitis B

in 1991. From this factual premise, Petteruti appeared to argue

(1) that without the 1991 test result, there was no evidence that

she had hepatitis B before her 1994 vaccination, and accordingly

the court’s conclusion on summary judgment in No 00-3230 was

unsupportable because there was a live dispute of fact whether she

was infected by hepatitis B as a result of the vaccination; and (2)

that the government misrepresented the results of her 1991 test,

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

falsely representing to her and others that she did have hepatitis

B, when in fact she did not. The court concluded that Petteruti’s

claims were either barred by res judicata or fell outside the

government’s waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort

Claims Act. No 04-1986, Doc #17; No 04-3063, Doc #19.

Although the complaints in Nos 05-1140 and 05-1650 are

not identical, they are substantially similar, and, like the

complaints in Nos 04-1986 and 04-3063, are almost unintelligible. 

The allegations seem to include the malpractice allegations of Nos

99-0542 and 04-1986 along with the misrepresentation allegations of

Nos 04-1986 and 04-3063, as well as vague references to

“harrassment.”

II

To frame the full context for this order, the court must

address Petteruti’s fifth and sixth suits, Nos 05-1140 and 05-1650. 

Aside from the vague references to “harassment,” which plainly fail

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations

of the fifth and sixth suits are wholly overlapping with the first

four suits. The doctrine of res judicata thus applies to bar the

fifth and sixth suits. Accordingly, Nos 05-1140 and 05-1650 are

DISMISSED, albeit without prejudice should plaintiff wish to

elaborate on her claim for “harassment”.

III

A district court has power under the All Writs Act, 28

USC § 1651(a), to enjoin litigants who abuse the judicial system. 

Tripati v Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (9th Cir 1989); Walker v

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Stanley, 231 BR 343, 350 (N D Cal 1999) (Ware, J); Waldron v

Washington Mutual, 1999 US Dist LEXIS 11941, *11 (N D Cal)

(Jenkins, J); see DeLong, 912 F2d at 1147 (recognizing that “there

is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal

courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing

carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate

circumstances”). “Even onerous conditions may be imposed upon a

litigant as long as they are designed to assist the district court

in curbing the particular abusive behavior involved.” Tripati, 878

F2d at 352 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit has established four guidelines that a

court must follow in enjoining a vexatious litigant: (1) the

litigant must be provided with notice and a chance to be heard

before the court enters the order; (2) the court should establish

an adequate record for review, that is, a listing of the cases

and/or abusive activities undertaken by the litigant; (3) the court

must make a substantive finding that the litigant’s activities were

frivolous and harassing; and (4) the court must narrowly tailor the

order to deter the specific vice encountered. DeLong, 912 F2d at

1147-48.

A

In the case at bar, the first DeLong requirement is

readily satisfied. Petteruti was on notice in the order dismissing

her third and fourth cases that the court was contemplating

vexatious litigant proceedings. See No 04-3063, Doc #19 at 7:10-

14. Further, the court ordered Petteruti to show cause why she

should not be declared a vexatious litigant. No 05-1140, Doc #6. 

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petteruti has had ample notice.

B

Second, the history of Petteruti’s vexatious filings is

manifest. As the discussion above details, Petteruti has filed a

total of six lawsuits. The second lawsuit was proper, inasmuch as

the first lawsuit suffered from a failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, but the third and fourth lawsuits were largely redundant

of the first, and the fifth and sixth lawsuits are utterly

frivolous.

C

Next, the court turns to the third DeLong requirement,

which is the heart of the matter: whether the evidence submitted

to the court warrants a substantive finding that Petteruti’s

litigation activities were frivolous or harassing. In making this

determination, the court must consider both the number and the

content of her filings. DeLong, 912 F2d at 1148. The court should

examine several factors in this regard: (1) Petteruti’s history of

litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious,

harassing or duplicative suits or filings; (2) Petteruti’s motive

in pursuing the litigation, i e, whether Petteruti has an objective

good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether Petteruti is

represented by counsel; (4) whether Petteruti has caused needless

expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the

courts and their personnel; (5) whether other sanctions would be

adequate to protect the courts and other parties; and (6) whether

Petteruti is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process. 

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

Safir v United States Lines, Inc, 792 F2d 19, 24 (2d Cir 1986);

Walker, 231 BR at 350-51.

With respect to the first factor, Petteruti’s suits are

simply duplicative. As the court has repeatedly noted, it does not

doubt that Petteruti has suffered some extremely upsetting medical

developments and diagnoses. Her actions do not appear to be

calculated to harass. But they are nonetheless duplicative and

vexatious to the court and the United States Attorney.

Similarly, on the second factor, while the court has no

indication that Petteruti’s suits are brought in bad faith, she

nonetheless can have no objective expectation of prevailing in a

fifth, sixth or seventh lawsuit when she could not in the first or

second. Bringing the same suit over and over again and expecting

different results in a legal system in which prior outcomes are

binding is objectively unreasonable.

On the third factor, Petteruti is not represented by

counsel. The court does not find this factor especially helpful,

though, as the court has much experience with both frivolous and

nonfrivolous pro se plaintiffs and attorneys alike.

The fourth factor -- whether Petteruti has caused

needless expense to the United States or has posed an unnecessary

burden on the court and its personnel -- weighs strongly against

Petteruti. The separate recordkeeping associated with six

duplicative lawsuits is a substantial and wholly unnecessary burden

on the United States Attorney and this court (not to mention the

state courts that have been forced to accept Petteruti’s filings on

occasion).

The fifth factor is whether a lesser sanction would deter

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

Petteruti’s conduct. The court can think of none, especially in

view of Petteruti’s failure to heed the court’s warning in

dismissing the third and fourth suits that it would initiate

vexatious litigant proceedings if she refiled. In Safir, the

Second Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to enjoin the

plaintiff from filing further vexatious litigation, stating:

We therefore cannot ignore the obvious fact

that mere dismissal of this action will not

hinder [plaintiff] from initiating further

similar proceedings. [Plaintiff’s] abuse of the

judicial process, despite his subjective

conviction that he has suffered an unremedied

injury, cannot be countenanced.

Safir, 792 F2d at 25. Such is the case here.

Finally, Petteruti’s repeated filings convince the court

that she will continue to abuse the judicial process, satisfying

the sixth factor. The court’s sympathy for Petteruti simply cannot

obscure the unreasonable burden her litigation has cast on all

involved.

Accordingly, the third DeLong guideline is satisfied.

D

Having determined that the first three DeLong guidelines

support an order enjoining Petteruti in some way, the court must

fashion an order that is narrowly tailored to remedy the particular

ills posed by Petteruti. In determining the scope of the order,

the court is mindful that Petteruti is entitled to some guideance

as to what she must do to obtain the court’s permission to file

papers or an action. Triparti, 878 F2d at 354. The court

considers appropriate relief to be as follows:

/

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

Christina Petteruti, and her agents, servants,

employees, attorneys, and persons in active concert

and participation with them who receive actual notice

of this order are hereby:

(1) permanently enjoined from filing any

additional pleadings or papers in the cases at

bar, except as described in paragraphs (3),

(4) and (5); and

(2) permanently enjoined from attempting to

relitigate, by commencing a lawsuit or any

legal proceeding, in this court or any other,

against the David Grant Medical Center, the

United States, or any of its officers,

agencies or instrumentalities, regarding

Petteruti’s hepatitis B vaccination and blood

tests received at David Grant Medical Center

during the 1990s or any issues arising

therefrom, except as described in paragraphs

(3), (4) and (5).

(3) Should Petteruti seek to file papers or suits

as described in paragraphs (1) and (2), she

shall file a petition for leave to file those

papers or suits with the general duty judge of

this court.

(4) Should Petteruti seek to file papers or suits

as described in paragraphs (1) and (2), she

must first post a bond with the court in the

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

amount of $5,000 to cover costs, fees and

sanctions that may be levied against her.

(5) This injunction does not apply to any filings

Petteruti may make with this court or the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in connection

with any appeal in this matter.

(6) Failure to comply with the terms of this

injunction shall be sufficient grounds for

this court or any other court to strike the

filing, dismiss the complaint with prejudice

and/or impose a sanction for contempt of

court, as circumstances require.

IV

Nos 05-1140 and 05-1650 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The clerk is DIRECTED to close the files and TERMINATE all motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01986-VRW Document 23 Filed 06/14/05 Page 10 of 10