Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. ESPINOSA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1192 MCE GGH PS

vs.

SCOTT MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

BACKGROUND

This action, in which the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, has been referred to the

undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21). On January 26, 2007, this court granted in

part defendants’ motion for order staying proceedings and awarding costs and/or requiring

plaintiff to post a vexatious litigant bond, filed November 21, 2006, and ordered plaintiff to post

security for costs in the amount of $10,000 within fifteen days of that order. The order was based

on three previous cases brought by plaintiff in this court, the last of which found plaintiff to be a

vexatious litigant. See Espinosa v. Wheeler, Civ. S. 04-0203 MCE GGH PS, Order, filed

December 15, 2004.

The January 26, 2007 order warned plaintiff that failure to post security would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff was permitted to file a motion

for reconsideration, which he did on February 7, 2007. That motion was denied by the district 

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 85 Filed 04/04/07 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

2

court on March 8, 2007. On March 16, 2007, this court informed plaintiff that if he did not post

a bond within fifteen days of the March 8 denial of motion for reconsideration, this court would th

recommend dismissal of his action. Plaintiff has not posted a bond. Therefore, the court will

recommend dismissal of this action, and enter a pre-filing vexatious litigant order.

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER

The January 26, 2007 order set forth a summary of the three previous cases filed

by plaintiff as well as the instant case. In all of the cases, plaintiff has sued Colusa County

officials, the Money Store, their lawyers, and judges who rule against plaintiff in his lawsuits. 

The suits are based on the default by plaintiff’s parents on a loan from The Money Store which

resulted in the foreclosure sale of their family home in Colusa County. The undersigned

incorporates that discussion herein.

As the court stated previously in summarizing these four actions, and in the

previous action in which plaintiff was declared to be a vexatious litigant, plaintiff clearly

qualifies as a vexatious litigant based on his having filed three cases which were adversely

decided, his repeated attempts to either re-litigate past decisions or the same issues which were

previously fully litigated, and his having filed numerous frivolous motions. Based on the number

and content of these cases, the court directed the posting of a security bond in the January 26,

2007 order. Due to plaintiff’s failure to post the bond and the district court’s denial of his

request for reconsideration of the order requiring it, as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

affirmation of the district court’s judgment in the previous case entering the vexatious litigant

order, and in accordance with this court’s December 15, 2004 order in Espinosa v. Wheeler, Civ.

S. 04-0203 MCE GGH PS, and the January 26, 2007 order in the instant case, the court now

recommends that the district court enter a vexatious litigant order. 

The court has considered and applied the vexatious litigant order law set forth in

DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990). The requirements of that case have been

met. Plaintiff should not be permitted to continually harass those persons who he believes,

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 85 Filed 04/04/07 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

3

despite court judgments to the contrary, have in some way contributed to the loss of the subject

property. Nor should he be able to predicate new court actions on sham sequellae of that

property loss, e.g., suing the lawyers or other persons involved in the previous action(s). 

DISMISSAL OF THE INSTANT ACTION

In the January 26th order, plaintiff was directed to post security within fifteen

days and that failure to post bond would result in a recommendation that the instant action would

be dismissed. Plaintiff was also permitted to file a request for reconsideration. Plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration which was denied. This court then issued another order on March 16,

2007, warning plaintiff that if he did not post a bond within fifteen days of the district court’s

March 8, 2007 denial of his motion for reconsideration, this court would recommend dismissal of

his case. No bond was posted. Based on plaintiff’s failures to comply with the aforementioned

orders and the vexatious litigant finding in plaintiff’s previous case, this court now recommends

that the instant action be dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The following pre-filing review order be entered based on the court’s January

26, 2007 order and this court’s December 15, 2004 vexatious litigant order in Espinosa v.

Wheeler, Civ. S. 04-0203 MCE GGH PS: (1) Plaintiff shall not initiate any further pro se action

in this court unless the pleadings initiating the action are accompanied by a declaration under

penalty of perjury that explains why plaintiff believes he has meritorious claims. The declaration

shall include a list of all previous actions plaintiff has filed in this or any court, identifying

named defendants and all claims made in the previous actions. Plaintiff shall certify that the

defendants named in the proposed action have never before been sued by plaintiff, or

alternatively that any claims against previously sued defendants are not related to previous

action[s]. The declaration shall also state that the claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith,

and that plaintiff has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and the investigation

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 85 Filed 04/04/07 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

4

supports his claim(s). Finally, a copy of this order shall be attached to any application. (2) The

Clerk shall not file or lodge any action submitted pro se by plaintiff unless it is accompanied by

the required declaration and a copy of the instant order; any such incomplete filings shall be

returned to plaintiff without further action of the court. (3) If plaintiff files a pro se action

accompanied by the required declaration, the Clerk shall open the matter as a miscellaneous case

to be considered by the General Duty Judge of this court. The judge will issue necessary orders

after making a determination whether the case is in fact related to a previous case filed by

plaintiff, and whether it is non-frivolous.

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

within ten days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

DATED: 4/4/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

espinosa1192.fr

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 85 Filed 04/04/07 Page 4 of 4