Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02626/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02626-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shirley D. Stone and John W. Stone, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Judge Redfield T. Baum, Judge Sarah Sharar

Curley, Judge Randolph Haines, Judge James M.

Marlar and U.S. Trustee Ilene LaShinsky of the

District of Arizona Bankruptcy Court; Kent

Harding and his attorneys Scott M. Clark and

Paul Henderson; Arizona Municipal Judge Lex

Anderson and Judge Michael Orcutt; Fanfare

Media Works, Inc. and Attorney Steve

Weatherspoon; Safeway Foods, Albertsons Food

and Drug, Inc.; Kym Pasqualini; KPHO TV, a

Meredith Corporation, KREM TV a Belo

Corporation; Robert Reed and former disbarred

attorney Robert Suzenski; Arizona State Judge

Gary Donahoe and Judge Peter B. Swann;

Federal Judge Susan Bolton, Senior Federal

Judge Earl Carroll, Senior Federal Judge Paul K.

Rosenblatt, and Judge Frederick Martone;

Citicapital and Attorney Mary Farrington-Lorch;

Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris; State Bar of

Arizona Attorneys Robert B. Van Wyck and

John Furlong; FBI Director Robert Mueller, U.S.

Marshal Steve Borak, U.S. Attorney Paul K.

Charlton, Asst. U.S. Attorneys Richard Patrick

and Raynett Passos; Former U.S. Attorney

General John Ashcroft, President G. W. Bush,

and 1-100 Jane or John Does. All Federal and

State Government Employees are being sued in

their Individual and Persona Capacity,

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-2626 PHX DCB

ORDER

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 121 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

On December 22, 2005, this Court dismissed the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs

as frivolous and because it failed to state a claim against any of the approximately 44 named

Defendants. Based on Plaintiffs' judicial track record, the Court found that Plaintiffs were

vexatious litigants.

Only because Plaintiffs are pro se litigants, the Court granted them leave to amend

their Complaint to state a proper claim, and the Court went into great detail explaining how

Plaintiffs could state such a claim. The Court prohibited the Plaintiffs from any further

filings in the Federal District Courts for the District of Arizona of "claims which have been

adjudicated by other courts nor allegations against attorneys, prosecutors, or judges based

solely on their involvement with the judicial process of adjudicating such claims." (Order

at 22.) The Court warned Plaintiffs that such continued harassing measures and abuses of

this judicial forum would result in this Court issuing a vexatious litigant Order barring them

from any further filings in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Plaintiffs had until January 30, 2006, to file an Amended Complaint.

The Court also awarded Defendant Albertsons sanctions against Plaintiffs in the

form of attorney fees and costs associated with the action. The Court enjoined Plaintiffs

from filing further lawsuits against Albertsons. 

Since the Court issued the December 22, 2005, Order, Defendant Albertsons filed

their motion and affidavit for attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs have not filed a response or

objection. Plaintiffs have not filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs did file a Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Strike the December 22, 2005, Order, which this Court denied on

January 12, 2006. They also filed a document captioned "Plaintiffs'/Debtors' in Possession

Judicial Notice."

The Court has reviewed Defendant Albertsons' motion and affidavit for an award of

attorney fees in the amount $27,044.00. Having already found the award to be an

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 121 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

appropriate sanction, the Court now finds that $27,044.00 appears to be a fair and reasonable

amount of fees and costs incurred to date.

The Court has reviewed the document filed by the Plaintiffs. They continue to attack

other judicial proceedings over which this Court has no jurisdiction. By flagrantly ignoring

the directives of this Court to stop such harassing and abusive use of this Court, Plaintiffs

subject themselves to an injunction prohibiting them from any future filings in the federal

district courts of Arizona. As they have failed to file an Amended Complaint, dismissal of

this action is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Albertsons is awarded sanctions,

pursuant to Rule 11, against Plaintiffs in the amount of $27,044.00 in attorneys fees and

costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not accept any

further filing in this case, except for filings necessary to secure an appeal of this Court's

Orders issued in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with the exception of any appeal filed in this

case, the Clerk of the Court shall not accept any further filings by Plaintiffs, without leave

of this Court. Any filing must be accompanied by a Motion for Leave to file it and a copy

of this Court's Order issued on December 22, 2005. Leave shall be granted for any claims

over which this Court has appellate review, such as an appeal from the bankruptcy courts,

or for any claims which comply with the directives for filing a proper claim as described in

the Order issued by this Court on December 22, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly and close this case.

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 121 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent to the Clerk

of the Court in Phoenix and the Chief Deputy Clerk in Tucson and to all the judges of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

DATED this 3rd day of February, 2006.

copy emailed to all District/Magistrate

Judges, District of Arizona; Clerk/Phoenix;

Deputy Clerk/Tucson by cjs 2/3/06

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 121 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 4