Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02870/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02870-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MELANIE CHANTELL LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02870-RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

Despite the fact this matter has been dismissed with prejudice and closed, Melanie 

Chantell Latronica has again filed multiple motions to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for 

relief from the judgment, and also requests reassignment to a different district judge. Latronica is 

no stranger to California courts or this court. She has filed incomprehensible complaints in the 

Eastern District of California. See, e.g., Latronica v. Obama, No. 2:12-cv-1592-KJM-EFB PS, 

2012 WL 2428436 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2012); Latronica v. California, No. S-12-1047, 2012 WL 

2401382 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2012); Latronica v. Superior Court of California, No. 1:09cv1162 

AWI DLB, 2009 WL 2136333 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009). Indeed, the judge assigned to her case is 

one of the hundreds of defendants listed in her complaint. Latronica has also filed at least four 

suits in the Northern District of California—all of which have been dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to state claims for relief and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Latronica v. England, 

No. 3:16-02870-RS; Latronica v. Double Tree by Hilton, No. 4:15-cv-01709-DMR; Latronica v. 

Case 3:16-cv-02870-RS Document 35 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 16-cv-02870-RS

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

Halfhill, No. 4:14-cv-04257-YGR;1Latronica v. United States, No. 4:13-5685-YGR. The 

California state courts have had similar experiences with Latronica and, indeed, have labeled her a 

vexatious litigant. See California Courts’ Vexatious Litigant List (July 1, 2016), 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf.

Federal courts also have authority to label a litigant “vexatious” and to require review of 

future complaints filed by the vexatious litigant. “The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), 

provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious 

litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Before 

entering such an order, district courts must (1) give the litigant notice and an opportunity to be 

heard; (2) compile an adequate record for review; (3) “make substantive findings that the litigant’s 

filings are frivolous or harassing”; and (4) narrowly tailor the pre-filing order to “fit the specific 

vice encountered.” Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, No. C-12-4187 EMC, 2013 WL 144047, at 

*5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In light of this history in the court, Latronica is now ordered to show cause why she should 

not be labeled a vexatious litigant and have a pre-filing order entered against her. She must 

respond to this order by August 19, 2016, by 5:00 p.m. PST, and address each of the factors listed 

above. Latronica’s pending motions for relief from the judgment and to proceed in forma 

pauperis are denied for the reasons articulated in this court’s previous order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 Dissatisfied with orders dismissing her claims, Latronica accused Judge Gonzalez-Rogers of 

prejudice and sought her disqualification. Judge Gonzalez-Rogers referred the matter to a 

different district judge for review. Judge Tigar rejected Latronica’s charge of bias was baseless. 

See Latronica v. Sangha, No. 14CV04257YGRJST, 2015 WL 3463410, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 

2015) (“And aside from Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ dismissal of her case, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit is legally insufficient to merit disqualification.”).

Case 3:16-cv-02870-RS Document 35 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 16-cv-02870-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02870-RS Document 35 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3