Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00299/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00299-1/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ERVIN,

Plaintiff, No. C 08-0299 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,

et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the above-entitled action for failure to state a claim

and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction came on for hearing before this court on April 23,

2008. Plaintiff Gary Ervin appeared in propria persona, and defendants Judicial Council of

California (“Judicial Council”) and Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme

Court (“Chief Justice George”), appeared by their counsel Deputy Attorney General Tom

Blake. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendants’

motion.

Under California’s Vexatious Litigant Statute, California Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 391, et seq., a defendant in state court may move the court to require a pro se plaintiff to

provide security if the defendant can make a showing that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant

and there is not a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against

the moving party. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 391.1. 

Once a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant within the meaning of the

statute, the court may also enter an order prohibiting the plaintiff from filing new state court

litigation absent leave of the presiding judge where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Id.

Case 4:08-cv-00299-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 4
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

§ 391.7(a). This order is known as a “prefiling order.” Parties subject to prefiling orders are

placed on a statewide list – the “Vexatious Litigant List” – maintained by the Judicial

Council of California and disseminated to the clerks of the state courts. Id. § 391.7(e). The

Vexatious Litigant Statute has survived several constitutional challenges in California

courts. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 361 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In recent years, plaintiff, who resides in Sacramento, California, has filed numerous

lawsuits in both state and federal court. On April 25, 2007, the Superior Court of California,

County of Sacramento, declared plaintiff a vexatious litigant under California law, and

notified the Judicial Council by issuing a prefiling order on Judicial Council Form MC-700,

as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7(e). The Judicial Council also

added plaintiff’s name to the list of vexatious litigants, pursuant to the statute.

 Plaintiff filed this action on January 16, 2008, alleging retaliation in violation of Title II

of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and also alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff asserts that the Sacramento Superior Court issued the prefiling order in

retaliation for his ongoing ADA Title II litigation currently pending against the Judicial

Council. He claims that the Judicial Council has converted “discretionary” Code of Civil

Procedure § 391.7 into “mandatory” Form MC-700, and that the California judiciary uses

Form MC-700 to nullify ADA Title II. He seeks an order enjoining defendants from issuing

or maintaining prefiling orders against plaintiff during the maintenance of his ADA Title II

litigation.

Defendants now seek an order dismissing the case, arguing that the Judicial Council

has absolute quasi-judicial immunity for its function of recording the trial judge’s

determination that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, and maintaining the vexatious litigant list;

that both defendants are immune from suit under § 1983 by reason of the Eleventh

Amendment of the United States Constitution; that neither the Judicial Counsel nor Chief

Justice George in his capacity as Chairman of the Judicial Council is a “person” within the

meaning of § 1983; and that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court lacks

jurisdiction to review state court judgments and orders. 

Case 4:08-cv-00299-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 4
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

The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED, because the court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts

from “exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state

court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see also

Wolfe, 392 F.3d at 363. 

Plaintiff’s complaint purports to assert a claim against the Judicial Council, and

against Chief Justice George as Chairman of the Judicial Council, for placing and

maintaining plaintiff’s name on the Vexatious Litigant List. However, plaintiff’s real

challenge is to the state court decision finding him a vexatious litigant – absent that order,

there could have been no administrative act of placing his name on the statewide list. In

his opposition to defendants’ motion, he makes clear that his claim is that he was “abused

by a judge operating a vexatious litigant mill enabled by the Judicial Council and its

Chairman.” Opp. at 5. 

Thus, the relief plaintiff seeks is “inextricably intertwined” with the state court

proceedings. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87

(1983); but see Wolfe, 392 F.3d at 363 (Rooker-Feldman did not bar jurisdiction, as “there

was no vexatious litigant order entered against [plaintiff] at the time he filed in district court,”

and therefore “no state court judgment from which he could have been seeking relief”).

Moreover, the administrative actions of placing plaintiff’s name on the Vexatious

Litigant List and disseminating the list to the clerks of the court of the state were mandatory

under Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7. That section provides that 

the clerk of the court shall provide the Judicial Council a copy of any prefiling

orders issued pursuant to [§ 391.7(a)]. The Judicial Council shall maintain a

record of vexatious litigants subject to those prefiling orders and shall

annually disseminate a list of those persons to the clerks of the courts of this

state.

Cal. Civ. P. Code § 391.7(e) (emphasis added). Thus, those actions were carried out in

conformance with state law enacted by the California Legislature. Plaintiff alleges no basis

upon which to challenge the validity of the Vexatious Litigant Statute, which has repeatedly

been held constitutional by both state and federal courts. See, e.g., Wolfe v. George, 486

Case 4:08-cv-00299-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/24/08 Page 3 of 4
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

F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007); Bravo v. Ismaj, 99 Cal. App. 4th 211 (2002). Plaintiff’s only

challenge is to the action of the Superior Court in finding him a vexatious litigant. 

Finally, as a further basis for dismissal, the court finds that Eleventh Amendment to

the United States Constitution bars the § 1983 claim against the Judicial Council and

against Chief Justice George in his official capacity, and that they are not “persons” under §

1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 66 (1967). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00299-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/24/08 Page 4 of 4