Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01801/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01801-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SHIRLEY STONE and JOHN STONE, et

al.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

CITY OF PEORIA, ARIZONA; DAVID

LEONARDO, individually and as the

former Chief of Police for the City of

Peoria Police Department; STEVE KEMP,

individually and as the former City

Attorney for the City of Peoria; JOHN

KEEGAN, individually and as the former

mayor of the City of Peoria; THOMAS

STEWART, individually and as a

detective in Criminal Investigations

Bureau with the City of Peoria Police

Department; MICHAEL SELF,

individually and as detective for Terrorist

Division of the Criminal Investigations

Bureau with the City of Peoria Police

Department; THE HONORABLE LEX

ANDERSON, individually and as the

former Peoria Justice Court Judge; RON

MEYER, individually and as Maricopa

County Constable; KENT HARDING;

KRISTINA HARDING; SCOTT M.

CLARK; LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT M.

CLARK; PAUL K. HENDERSON; BILL

HOWARD, dba, Two Men and a Truck

Moving Company; THE HONORABLE

ROBERT C. HOUSER; JOHN DOE

CONSTABLES, I-V; JOSEPH M.

BOYLE; JANE DOES, I-L; JANE DOES,

government employees, VI-L,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1801-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 16
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

1

Plaintiffs have filed at least five bankruptcies in the District of Arizona since 1998.

See 05-BK-13837 at 2. In fact, Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy filings are so prolific that Bankruptcy

Judge Marlar has Ordered that any future filings by the Stones be assigned directly to his

court. See CV-05-2626, Dkt.# 101, p.4 n.2.

- 2 -

Currently before the Court are: (1) Peoria Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.# 6);

(2) Maricopa County, The Honorable Lex Anderson, and Ron Meyer’s Motion to Dimiss

(Dkt # 11); (3) Stones’ Motion to Vacate Writ of Restitution (Dkt.# 13); (4) Kent Harding,

Kristina Harding, Scott M. Clark, Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, Paul K Henderson, Joseph

M. Boyle’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.# 16); (5) Michael Self’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion

for Joinder by the City of Peoria, Steve Kemp, John Keegan, Thomas Stewart, Michael Self

(Dkt.# 21); (6) Stones’ Motion to Vacate Judge Marlar's 9/6/05 Order Lifting Automatic Stay

(Dkt.# 24); (7) Stones’ Motion for Sanctions (Dkt.# 25); (8) Clark, Henderson, Harding,

Boyle’s Motion to Reaffirm the Vexatious Litigant Order of Judge Bury (Dkt.# 28); (9)

Stones’ Motion to Adjudge Defendants in Contempt (Dkt.# 33); (10) Stones’ Motion for

Reconsideration of Court's Order dated 12/11/07 (Dkt.# 47); (11) Stones’ Motion Requesting

Court to Take Judicial Notice of the Orders and Adjudicated Facts in Federal Case CV

05-2626 (Dkt.# 50); (12) Stones’ Emergency Motion for Leave to File Supplemental

Pleading for 9/10/07 (Dkt.# 55); (13) Stones’ Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial

Notice (Dkt.# 59);(14) Stones’ Motion Requesting Court to take Judicial Notice of

Defendant's Bankruptcy Court Filing (Dkt.# 61); and (15) Stones’ Motion for Status. (Dkt.#

62).

Plaintiffs John and Shirley Stone appear before the Court in what is now their tenth

filing in the United Stated District Court for the District of Arizona on claims that are related

to events and occurrences arising out of their numerous bankruptcy filings.1

 See Stone, et al.

v. v. Jackson, et al., CV 98-1087-PHX-ROS; Stone, et al. v. v. Mason, CV 99-1738-PHXPGR; Stone, et al. v. Albertson's Inc.,CV 99-1897-PHX-MS; Stone, et al. v. Mason, et al.,

CV 02-0784-PHX-PGR; Stone, et al. v. Mason, et al., CV 02-1389- PHX-PGR; Stone, et al.

v. Fanfare Media Works, et al.,CV 03-0562-PHX-SRB; Stone, et al. v. Curley, et al., CV 03-

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 16
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

The Background section of this Order is drawn primarily from Judge McNamee’s

Dec. 1, 2005 Order in CV 05-2626 and Judge Bury’s dispositive Order dated Dec. 22, 2005

in that same case. See CV 05-2626, Dkt. ## 101,113.

- 3 -

1585-PHX-SRB; Stone, et al. v. Baum, et al., CV 05-2626-PHX-DCB; Stone v. Thomas, et

al., CV 06-1324-PHX-NVW (ECV).

These previous cases have repeatedly resulted in decisions against the Plaintiffs on

grounds ranging from the application of the preclusion doctrines of res judicata and collateral

estoppel, to principles of absolute immunity for judicial officers performing their official

duties, to failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After each successive

court defeat, Plaintiffs have attempted to re-litigate the same factual underpinnings by brining

new suits that name or remove several defendants, but are otherwise identical to the previous

ones. Throughout the course of their prodigious litigation efforts the Stones have been given

innumerable warnings by the federal district court and others that continuing to file and refile frivolous claims against state and federal judges, opposing counsel, and certain common

defendants would result in both sanctions under Rule 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. and the issuance of

a vexatious litigant order, which would prevent Plaintiffs from commencing an action in

federal court without first seeking the Court’s permission and pre-filing review. Yet Plaintiffs

remained undeterred.

Given the multiplicity of lawsuits and the voluminous number of motions filed by the

Stones in this and other cases, the record before the Court is somewhat confusing. The Court

will, however, provide a brief overview of the historical facts and procedural posture of this

action.2

I. Background

The heart of the Stones’ court filings focus on two incidents which more or less

intersect with their numerous bankruptcy petitions. The first incident concerns a running feud

between the Stones and Albertsons, Inc. The second involves a dispute over a residential

lease agreement between the Stones and the Harding family. The latter dispute forms the

basis of the instant suit before this Court.

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 16
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 -

A. Albertsons Litigation

The Stones first sued Albertsons, Inc., in 1998 in Arizona Superior Court, alleging

Albertsons breached a settlement agreement concerning use of the Stones’ bulletin board

advertising business. See CV 05-2626, Dkt. 113, p. 4 (citing Stone v. Albertsons, Inc., CV

98-1889). Albertsons counter-claimed against the Stones for $400,000-$500,000 in back

rent. Id. The case was ultimately dismissed as a sanction against the Stones for violating a

court order. Id. The Stones then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, where the two pending

lawsuits became property of the bankruptcy estate. Id. (citing Memorandum Decision, BAP

No. AZ 01-1498, filed Sept. 9, 2002, at 2-4). The bankruptcy was eventually converted into

a Chapter 7 filing and the court appointed a trustee who attempted to resolve the AlbertsonsStone litigation—after concluding that the Stones’ claims were meritless. Id. at 5. To this

end, Albertsons offered to purchase both suits from the bankruptcy estate in return for

$14,000 and a waiver of any proof of claim for the value of its state court counterclaim. Id.

The cases were then placed on public auction, for which no bids were submitted. Id. The

bankruptcy trustee later approved sale of the Stones’ lawsuits to Albertsons. Id. The Stones

filed objections to the bankruptcy sale order that were denied by the bankruptcy judge as

moot. Id. The sale order was appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), and was

again dismissed as moot. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed these decisions in Stone v.

Albertsons, Inc., 51 Fed. Appx. 753 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Stones then filed four adversary actions in bankruptcy court. Id. at 5-6. These

actions were dismissed after the bankruptcy court repeatedly rejected the claims on res

judicata grounds. Id. 

Following the events in Bankruptcy Court, the Stones brought numerous other

lawsuits in federal district court against Albertsons, its lawyers, various judges who had ruled

against them, the bankruptcy trustee, and any other individuals or entities who were

perceived as being somehow complicit in effectuating the trustee’s sale order. Each lawsuit

attempted to re-hash the initial determination made by the bankruptcy court regarding the

sale order. These lawsuits were styled as either federal civil rights actions, federal RICO

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 16
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 -

actions, supplemental state tort claims, requests for declaratory relief, or other less

understandable causes of action. All of these suits were dismissed.

B. The Harding Litigation

The Hardings, who are Defendants in the instant suit, were parties to a residential

lease agreement with the Stones. See CV 05-2626, Dkt.# 101, p. 2. The Hardings hired the

law firm of Scott M. Clark (consisting of Clark and Paul Henderson), both of whom are

Defendants here, to represent them in a forcible detainer action brought against the Stones

for non-payment of rent. (Amended Complaint, Dkt.# 1 Document 4, p. 3, 4). On June 28,

2005, the Hardings through their counsel petitioned the Arizona Justice Court, Peoria

Division, for a forcible detainer. The petitition was scheduled to be heard by the Honorable

Lex Anderson on August 4, 2005. 

In order to procedurally deadlock the Hardings’ action, on July 5, 2005, the Stones

filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. This petition had the desired effect of staying the

forcible detainer action. (BK-05-12104, Dkt.# 1). However, on July 26, 2005, Bankruptcy

Judge Marlar granted the Hardings motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue their

remedies in Arizona state court to reclaim possession of their property. CV 05-2626, Dkt.#

101, p. 2. That same day, the Hardings Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition was voluntarily

dismissed. Id.

On August 2, 2005, two days before the scheduled forcible detainer action was to be

heard in Arizona Justice Court, the Stones again petitioned for bankruptcy before Judge

Marlar, this time under Chapter 11. Id. Thereafter, according to Plaintiffs, they delivered

a copy of the bankruptcy filings to Judge Anderson’s clerk and faxed a copy to opposing

counsel. Id. at 2. Nevertheless, on August 4, 2005, Judge Anderson held the hearing on the

forcible detainer as scheduled, and the Stones did not attend. Id. Judge Anderson entered

judgment for a forcible detainer in the amount of $8,276. Id. at 3 (citing 05-BK-13837, Dkt.#

3, Exhibit 4A, 6A, 7A). The judgment also provided for a writ of restitution if the Stones did

not vacate the property. Id.

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 5 of 16
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 -

On August 11, 2005, after Constable Ron Meyers, another Defendant here, posted an

eviction notice on the property in question, the Stones provided Judge Anderson with a copy

of the Chapter 11 petition, at which time Anderson vacated the writ of restitution but not the

underlying judgment. Id. at 2-3. In response, the Hardings filed a motion for emergency

relief in bankruptcy court before Judge Marlar—who ordered that a hearing be held to

determine whether it was appropriate to lift the automatic stay on the forcible detainer. Id.

(citing 05-BK-12104, Dkt.# 14, 34). The hearing was set for August 31, 2005. Id. (citing

05-BK-12104, Dkt.# 26). 

On August 30, 2005, the Stones filed a motion to dismiss their Chapter 11 filing. The

Stones then declined to attend the August 31st hearing, after which, Judge Marlar issued a

minute order immediately lifting the automatic stay, thereby allowing the Hardings to return

to state court to reclaim their property. Id.

On September 7, 2005, the Hardings returned to Arizona Justice Court where they

obtained a newly issued writ of restitution from Judge Anderson. Id. The writ was executed

on September 8, 2005, resulting in the Stones’ eviction. Id. at 5. After the eviction,

pursuant to Arizona state law, the Hardings removed certain personal property belonging to

the Stones from the rental unit. Id; see A.R.Z. § 33-1368(E). The Stones’ Chapter 11

bankruptcy petition was then dismissed on October 5, 2005. On November 17, 2005, the

Hardings filed a notice for a public sale of personal property belonging to the Stones that had

been removed from the vacated premises and placed into storage. This sale was to have

taken place on December 2, 2005. Id.

C. CV 05-2626-PHX-DCB

On August 30, 2005, the Stones filed a complaint in federal court in the case CV 05-

2626, seeking to name all parties involved in both the Albertsons and Harding litigation as

defendants in a single suit. Named were Kent Harding, Scott M. Clark, Paul K. Henderson,

Lex Anderson, all of whom are Defendants in the instant case. See CV 05-2626, Dkt.# 1).

The Stones also named Albertsons, Inc., and its lawyers, various state and federal district

court judges, federal bankruptcy judges, FBI Director Robert Mueller, President George W.

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 6 of 16
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 -

Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and a host of others whom the Stones believed were

involved in wrongdoing related to Albertsons’ purchase of its 1998 state court case, as well

as the forcible detainer action and writ of restitution that allowed the Hardings to evict the

Stones. Id.

On December 1, 2005, United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona,

Stephen M. McNamee, ruled on the merits of the Stones’ claims regarding the forcible

detainer and writ of restitution. See CV 05-2626, Dkt.# 101, p. 5-6. Judge McNamee found

that the writ of restitution issued by Justice of the Peace Anderson allowed the Hardings,

pursuant to Arizona state law, to both evict the Stones from the rental property and hold their

personal property for a later sale. Specifically, the Court found that, contrary to the Stones’

assertions, the rental property was not subject to the Chapter 11 estate. Id. at 5. Second,

the Court found that the Stones’ right to pursue a remedy for any alleged violations by the

Hardings of the automatic stay had already expired. Lastly, the Court held that the Stones

had waived their right to challenge Judge Marlar’s Order lifting the automatic stay since they

had failed to lodge a timely appeal, and attempting to collatarally attack that Order before the

district court was not permissible. Id. at 6-7.

On December 20, 2005, Judge Bury issued a dispositive ruling in the case. See CV

05-2626, Dkt.# 113. The Court’s order referred the Stones back to previous orders where the

Court had explained how principles of res judicata barred subsequent litigation between the

same parties on the same cause of action, where there had been a final judgment on the

merits. Id. at 8. With respect to these repeat defendants, Judge Bury wrote, the “Court will

not, in an exercise of futility, attempt to restate what these other courts have so completely

explained to the Plaintiffs. Even given the repeated explanations, it appears that Plaintiffs

cannot be persuaded that res judicata bars them from re-litigating” against Albertsons. Id.

The Court went on to find that, “[u]nder the circumstances Plaintiffs have been so thoroughly

informed regarding the lack of any procedural and/or legal merit to their claims as to

eliminate any possible confusion or questions that might have otherwise existed due to

Plaintiffs’ pro se status.” Id. With respect to Plaintiffs motive to file suit, the Court found

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 7 of 16
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 -

that, “because Plaintiffs have been repeatedly informed that such repetitive suits are barred

by res judicata, there can be no conclusion except that Plaintiffs filed this case for an

improper purpose, such as to harass Albertsons and/or cause Albertsons undue litigation

costs.” Id.

 The Court went on to impose sanctions on the Stones under Rule 11 Fed. R. Civ. P.

for $27,044, an amount equaling Albertsons’ costs and attorney fees. See CV 05-2626, Dkt.#

121. The Court also considered whether a blanket vexatious litigant order was warranted,

one that would prevent the Stones from filing any lawsuits in federal court, regardless of the

subject matter, absent pre-filing review by the Court. See CV 06-2626, Dkt.# 113, p. 9-10.

Judge Bury wrote that the Stones’ practice of relitigating previously determined issues, and

then later filing suit against the very judges who dismissed their cases, along with opposing

counsel, amounted to a “a huge waste of judicial effort and time.” Id. at 10. The “Court

[was] convinced, based on Plaintiffs’ litigious record, that unless enjoined they [would]

continue their practice and pattern of vexatious and harassing attempts to relitigate cases

resolved against them.” Id. Nevertheless, while Judge Bury noted that there was “adequate

justification” to impose a permanent injunction against the Stones from filing suits in the

District of Arizona, the Court was inclined to “give Plaintiffs one last chance to self monitor

and regulate their use of the federal courts.” Id. at 11.

The case was thereafter dismissed with leave to amend, so long as an amended

complaint did not include “any claims which have been adjudicated by other courts,”

including:

claims addressed in the Order issued by Judge McNamee, filed on December 1,

2005, which arise from the eviction proceedings against Plaintiffs and related justice

court rulings and the bankruptcy court rulings lifting the bankruptcy stays to allow the

eviction proceedings to go forward against the Plaintiffs, resulting in the eviction of

Plaintiffs and ultimate sale of alleged business and personal property. As Judge

McNamee noted, the propriety of these courts’ rulings is not before this Court because

Plaintiffs failed to timely appeal them.

Id. at 20, n.1 (emphasis added). The Court further held that should the Stones attempt to relitigate the Albertsons and Harding claims in federal court, a blanket vexatious litigant order

would be issued against them.

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 8 of 16
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 -

D. CV 06-1324-PHX-NVW (ECV)

Directly contravening Judge Bury’s order, on May 15, 2006, John Stone filed suit in

federal district court against Kent Harding, Kristina Harding, Scott M. Clark, Paul K.

Henderson, Thomas Stewart, Lex Anderson, Steve Kemp, and Ron Meyer—all Defendants

in the instant case—for various claims related to the forcible detainer and writ of restitution.

See CV 06-1324, Dkt.# 1. The claims contained therein were virtually identical to those

addressed by Judge McNamee in the December 1, 2005 Order. Id. at 8-10. 

On October 23, 2006, Judge Wake denied Stone’s request to proceed In Forma

Pauperis on the grounds that Stone, although representing to the Court that he was “subject

to house arrest . . . [and had] no other source of income since his incarceration and [was]

unable to pay the filing fees,” had also recently posted a secured appearance bond for $2,500.

CV 06-1324, Dkt.# 6, p. 2. The Court further ordered that if Plaintiff chose to pay the filing

fee and proceed with his claim, he must “show good cause why this action should not be

summarily dismissed for failure to comply with the vexatious litigant order against him.” Id.

at. 6. Thereafter, Plaintiff missed the deadline to file an amended complaint and did not

appeal the Court’s Order.

E. State Court Litigation

On March 2, 2006, the Stones filed a state court action against Kent Harding, Kristina

Harding, the Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, Paul K. Henderson, Jane and/or John Does 1-

100, in Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2006-050748. The claims brought against the

defendants involved the same events adjudicated in federal district court in CV

05-2626-PHX-DCB. (Dkt.# 11 Exhibit 1). The case unsurprisingly ended when the

Maricopa Superior Court granted summary judgment against the Stones on September 27,

2007. (Dkt.# 16 Exhibit 1.) The legal argument presented by the defendants in their motion

for summary judgment was res judicata, predicated on the previous federal court ruling.

(Dkt.# 11 Exhibit 1).

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 9 of 16
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 -

II. The Instant Case

Following the grant of summary judgment by Maricopa County Superior Court, the

Stones filed this current suit, CV 07-1801-PHX-MHM. An Amended Complaint was lodged

in Arizona state court on September 10, 2007 and Defendants removed the case to federal

court, where it currently sits. (Dkt.# 1). The Amended Complaint includes more or less all

of the same defendants named throughout the Harding litigation, plus the Honorable Robert

C. Houser, who granted summary judgment against the Stones in the above mentioned state

suit, and Joseph M. Boyle, who represented Harding, Henderson and Clark in that same

action. Moreover, the factual underpinnings of the suit concern the forcible detainer and the

writ of restitution—again, these claims arise from the same cause of action dealt with by the

bankruptcy court, this Court in CV 05-2626 and CV 06-1324, and Maricopa County Superior

Court in CV2006-050748. 

As for specific allegations made against the Defendants, the Amended Complaint

reads as follows: (1) Kent and Kristina Harding are being sued for acts related to their rental

agreement with the Stones and subsequent forcible detainer and writ of restitution; (2) Scott

M. Clark and the Law Offices of Scott M. Clark are being sued for participating in the writ

of restitution order issued against the Stones; (3) Paul Henderson has been named for the

same reasons; (4) Bill Howard, bda, Two Men in a Truck Moving Company, is being sued

for transporting stolen property, by aiding the Harding’s in moving the Stones’ personal

property; (5) Maricopa County and the City of Peoria are being sued for failing to investigate

various contentions made by the Stones relating to the forcible detainer and writ of restitution

actions; (6) Lex Anderson for issuing the writ of restitution; (7) Ron Meyer, who as constable

executed the writ of restitution against the Stones; (8) John Keegan for failing to act upon

alleged wrongdoing concerning the writ of restitution while Mayor of Peoria; (9) David

Leonardo for actions that were similarly not taken while Chief of Police; (10) Michael Self

and Thomas Steward on similar grounds, while working as Detectives for the Peoria Police

Department. (Amended Complaint, Dkt.# 1, Exhibit Set 2).

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 10 of 16
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

- 11 -

In light of the background surrounding Plaintiff’s instant litigation, the named

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss based on res judicata, collateral estoppel, absolute

judicial immunity, qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. (Dkt.# 6, 11, 16, 21). 

Rather than re-hash to Plaintiffs in yet another written Order why each of the claims

contained in their Amended Complaint should be properly dismissed, this Court will refer

Plaintiffs back to Judge Bury’s Order in CV 05-2626, dated December 20, 2005, and Judge

McNamee’s Order in the same case, dated December 1, 2005. The Court will not waste any

more of its energy or time repeating itself. All claims contained in Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint, raised against each and every Defendant, are barred on the grounds of either res

judicata or collateral estoppel. Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)

(discussing res judicata); Hinkle Northwest, Inc. v. S.E.C., 641 F.2d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir.

1981) (discussing collateral estoppel). 

As to Defendants Hardings, Anderson, Clark, Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, and

Henderson, the doctrine of res judicata forces dismissal, since there have been final

judgements on the merits against the Stones in lawsuits involving the same transactions and

occurrences with these same Defendants in state and federal court. In re Enewally, 368 F.3d

1165, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004). The rules of claim preclusion under both Arizona and federal law

prevent re-litigation here. Id.; In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in

Gila River, 127 P.3d. 882 (Ariz. 2006). For the remaining Defendants, the doctrine of nonmutual defensive collateral estoppel precludes the Stones from raising issues that they

previously have had a full and fair opportunity to present in both state and federal court, and

that were actually litigated, necessarily determined and final in the cases CV 05-2626 (D.

Ariz.) and CV2006-050748 (Maricopa County Superior Court). Masson v. New Yorker

Magazine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Defensive collateral estoppel applies

when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim the plaintiff has

previously litigated and lost against another defendant.”).

Because recovery in the instant case is precluded under any construction of law or

fact, the Stone’s Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 11 of 16
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

- 12 -

granted, and the Court finds their claims both legally and factually frivolous. See Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 12(b)(6) Fed. R. Civ. P. Given the Stones’ history

of filing and re-filing the same claims against the same defendants involving the same two

fact patterns, and their continued use in bad faith of federal bankruptcy court to foil the

enforcement of otherwise valid state court judgments, the Court will now consider the

appropriateness of a vexatious litigant order. Such an order would permanently enjoin

Plaintiffs from filing future similar cases in the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona absent pre-filing review.

A. Motion to Declare Stones Vexatious Litigants

On November 13, 2007, Defendant’s Clark, the Hardings, Henderson, Boyle, Law

Offices of Scott M. Clark moved the Court to re-affirm the vexatious litigant Order that had

been threatened should the Plaintiffs attempt to re-file claims related to the forcible detainer

and writ of restitution in federal court. (Dkt.# 28).

This Court may, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), utilize its inherent

authority to issue an order enjoining litigants from filing any further actions or papers in the

district court without first obtaining leave to do so. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500

F.3d 1047,1057 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S.159, 171-73

(1977); Parker v. Kitzhaber, 2000 WL 776646 at *6 (Ore. April 21, 2000). The Ninth Circuit

has instructed lower courts to avoid “undue haste” when issuing such orders, since litigants

have a due process right of access to use the courts. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (quoting

Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. 422, 429 (1982) (“the Supreme Court traditionally has held

that the Due Process Clauses protect civil litigants who seek recourse in the courts, either as

defendants hoping to protect property or as plaintiffs attempting to redress grievances.”)

(internal quotations omitted)). Yet, when litigants flagrantly abuse the judicial process by

“preempting the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious

claims of other litigants,” such action “cannot be tolerated.” Id. (quoting DeLong v.

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-49 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted)).

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 12 of 16
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

- 13 -

To this end, the Ninth Circuit has adopted four factors that are to be used when a court

considers the appropriateness of a pre-filing injunction against a vexatious litigant. DeLong,

920 F.2d at 1147-48. First, a litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before

the order is entered. Id. Second, the district must “compile an adequate record for review.”

Id. Third, the district court must make substantive findings regarding the frivolous or

harassing nature of the parties litigation. Fourth, any vexatious litigant order issued must be

“narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” Id. In addition, the court has

instructed that pre-filing orders should rarely be imposed on pro se litigants. Id. (citing

Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir. 1980)). 

After considering the relevant DeLong factors, the Court finds that a vexatious litigant

order is appropriate under the circumstances of the instant case. As discussed in the

background section of this Order, the Stones have a long history of filing abusive and

harassing lawsuits against these defendants. The suits have ended with judgments against

Plaintiffs on the merits, and multiple courts have explained to Plaintiffs why principals of

claim and issue preclusion and judicial immunity prevent any further litigation. Yet, the

Stones only respond to these courtroom defeats with more lawsuits. When, in turn, the next

lawsuit has been thrown out of court, Plaintiffs file suit again hoping that the newest lawsuit

will finally bring relief that the others have denied. This is a cycle of litigation that must

come to an end. 

Plaintiffs have been repeatedly warned by this and other Courts regarding the potential

consequences of filing any more frivolous lawsuits in federal court. Indeed, in CV 05-2625,

Plaintiffs were subject to sanctions by this Court under Rule 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. for bringing

these and other related harassing claims. In that case, Judge Bury warned the Stones that a

vexatious litigant order would issue if they could not self- regulate their use of the federal

courts. The Court also ordered the Stones to forebear from bringing any more lawsuits that

are factually related to the underlying merits, or the prosecution of, the Albertsons or Harding

disputes. Yet, by filing CV 06-1324, the Stones flagrantly disregarded Judge Bury’s order.

After previous federal district court— in CV 06-1324— threatened John Stone with an order

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 13 of 16
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

- 14 -

to show cause why he was not in violation of the December 2005 Order, he took a voluntary

dismissal to go litigate in Arizona state court, where the Stones, filing as joint plaintiffs, lost

at summary judgement. Even after the latest defeat, Plaintiffs filed the instant suit in state

court. The instant case essentially differs from CV 05-2626, CV 06-1324, and the state filing

in CV CV2006-050748, only in that it names the Harding’s latest attorney and the presiding

judge, as defendants. The claims are otherwise identical. In fact, this Court’s docket is

replete with filings by the Stones that essentially ask this Court to re-litigate the merits of the

forcible detainer, the writ of restitution and the bankruptcy order issued on September 6,

2005 that lifted the automatic stay. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs chose to take a voluntary

dismissal in CV 06-1324 only after the Court raised the specter of a vexatious litigant order,

and then litigated those same issues two more times, this Court is left with no other

conclusion than that the instant case was brought in bad faith and with the sole purpose of

harassing Defendants. 

 The fact that the instant case arrived at federal court by virtue of the Defendant’s

removing the case from state court is unavailing. It is not relevant that Plaintiffs did not

chose the federal forum in which to litigate. Plaintiffs have been provided more than

adequate notice that filing this suit in any forum was vexatious and unjustified. Judge Bury

so warned them in the December 2005 Order. Plaintiffs refusal to abide by court orders and

their obvious lack of respect for final judgments has left this Court with no alternative but

to prevent the Stones from pursuing similar claims in this District.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiffs are vexatious litigants. They have placed a undue burden on this Court’s

resources by continuing to force it to address claims that were previously and conclusively

decided by other courts. Under the guise of vindicating their federal rights, Plaintiffs have

repeatedly harassed Kent and Kristina Harding, their counsel, and all those who have

stumbled into this protracted litigation. Although there exists adequate cause to issue a

blanket vexatious litigant order to prevent the Stones from bringing any additional lawsuits

without pre-filing review, the Court is hesitant to pursue such a drastic course of action. At

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 14 of 16
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

- 15 -

the same time, all those who have been the targets of Plaintiffs’ bad faith prosecutions must

be free from future action.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint as violating this Court’s Order, dated December 20, 2005 in the case Stone, et al.

v. Baum, et al., CV 05-2626-PHX-DC. (Dkt.#1),

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and

dismissing every named Defendant from this suit. (Dkt.# 6);(Dkt # 11); (Dkt.# 16); (Dkt.#

21). The Court finds that each claim raised by Plaintiffs in their Amended Complaint is

barred on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Clark, Henderson, Harding,

Boyle’s Motion to Reaffirm the Vexatious Litigant Order of Judge Bury. (Dkt.# 28). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying all Motions filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt.## 13,

24, 25, 33, 47, 50, 55, 59, 61, 62).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs John Stone and Shirley Stone are

hereby declared vexatious litigants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John and Shirley Stone are enjoined from filing

any further actions or lawsuits in this District without first obtaining leave of the Court,

including cases originally filed in Arizona State Court that have been properly removed to

federal court. This pre-filing injunction is limited to claims or allegations based upon

Plaintiffs’ dispute with Kent and Kristina Harding over a residential lease agreement,

forcible detainer action, and writ of restitution order. This pre-filing injunction also extends

to claims related to Plaintiffs’ subsequent and unsuccessful lawsuits before Maricopa County

Superior Court, United States District Court of Arizona and United States Bankruptcy Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this pre-filing injunction also prevents John and

Shirley Stone from brining suit against Kent Harding, Kristina Harding, Lex Anderson, Scott

M. Clark, Paul K. Henderson, Joseph M. Boyle, and Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, on any

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 15 of 16
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

- 16 -

cause of action in the District of Arizona, including cases originally filed in Arizona State

Court that have been properly removed to federal court, without leave of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in order to obtain leave of the Court, Plaintiffs

shall submit with their moving papers, a copy of this Order and an affidavit stating that the

claims have not been previously addressed and are not frivolous or lacking merit. Failure to

comply with the Court’s Order will constitute sufficient grounds to deny Plaintiffs’ request

for leave and to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to the

judges of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the Honorable

James M. Marlar, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01801-MHM Document 63 Filed 09/30/08 Page 16 of 16