Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01448-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER T. HARRELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HORNBROOK COMMUNICTY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-1448 TLN AC PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff paid the filing fee on July 21, 2023. On 

August 9, 2023, plaintiff submitted a notice stating that the Clerk of Court had made a filing error 

because this case should be filed under seal pursuant to the California False Claims Act so that 

the California Attorney General’s Office can decide whether to intervene. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff 

states that he has served the Attorney General’s office. Id. 

When a complaint clearly does not state a claim upon which the court can grant relief, a 

court can dismiss the case on its own (“sua sponte”), at the outset, without leave to amend. See 

Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s sua sponte 

dismissal of claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.). Additionally, a court may sua sponte 

dismiss a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b), which authorizes involuntary 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 6
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 

dismissal of a case based on a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, 

or failure to follow rules of procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff is hereby notified that the 

undersigned is contemplating recommending dismissal on one or both legal bases; plaintiff will 

be provided the opportunity to demonstrate in writing why the case should not be dismissed and 

to provide an amended complaint that fixes the problems in the current complaint. 

I. THE COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff is attempting to bring a case on behalf of the government pursuant to the 

California False Claims Act. ECF No. 1 at 1. In this action, referred to hereafter as Harrell III, 

plaintiff is suing the Hornbrook Community Service District (“HCUSD”), a public entity that 

provides domestic water to the community of Hornbrook in Siskiyou County, and several of 

HCUSD’s directors and employees. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that HCUSD and the 

named employees and directors wrongfully engaged in a scheme to violate plaintiff’s rights by 

providing various grants that they intended to profit from, and by falsely creating and certifying 

“emergencies” to bypass bidding required processes. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that in July of 

2021, during a period when there was no usable water in the distribution system, defendants 

unlawfully seized plaintiff’s car and its contents under the authority of a “declaration of water 

emergency.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff alleges defendants brought baseless administrative prosecutions 

against him. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions violate his rights and are part of an 

agreement and coordinated plan to oppress plaintiff. Id. at 10. In Footnote 25 on page 10 of 

plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff states, “Over the past several years, Plaintiff has brought multiple 

legal actions against the HCSD and its officers, filed complaints concerning its operations with 

multiple government agencies, and has assisted others in doing those things as well, much to their 

angst and irritation.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff brings multiple federal and state causes of action in his 

30-page complaint. 

II. WHY THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM 

 Though the contents of plaintiff’s complaint are somewhat convoluted, it is clear that 

plaintiff cannot bring a claim under the California False Claims Act as a pro se litigant, and 

therefore he cannot proceed with this case in its current form. The federal False Claims Act, 31 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 6
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 

U.S.C. § 3729, et seq., allows a private party to bring a false claims action on behalf of the 

government to prevent fraud against the public treasury resulting in financial loss. United States 

v. Neifert–White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 232 (1968). A lawsuit under this provision is generally 

referred to as a “qui tam” action. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a), 3730(b). The California False Claims 

Act was patterned after the federal False Claims Act. Rothschild v. Tyco Int’l, Inc., 83 

Cal.App.4th 488, 494 (2000). Because of the similarity between the two Acts, federal decisions 

are deemed persuasive authority in interpreting both state and federal provisions. Laraway v. 

Sutro & Co., Inc., 96 Cal.App.4th 266, 274-75 (2002). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that pro 

se plaintiffs do not have authority to bring a qui tam action, because a pro se plaintiff can only 

bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves. Stoner v. Santa Clara County Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 

1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007). “The FCA makes clear that notwithstanding the [qui tam plaintiff’s] 

statutory right to the government’s share of the recovery, the underlying claim of fraud always 

belongs to the government.” Id. Because plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, cannot bring a qui tam 

action, plaintiff cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted as the action is currently 

constructed. The case is therefore subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. 

Moreover, the complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in that it 

does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth, in a clear and understandable manner, 

the basis for plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, all of 

which are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff 

is obscured by the complaint, which is 30 pages in length, addresses disconnected events and 

allegations involving multiple defendants, and is written in such an overly complex and disjointed 

manner that makes it difficult to understand exactly what plaintiff’s claims are and whether the 

facts alleged provide a basis for those claims. The sheer quantity of allegations in plaintiff’s 

complaint and plaintiff’s disjointed writing make it impossible for the court, and therefore for 

defendants, to precisely determine what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or 

how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. Because plaintiff’s complaint is 

confusing, vague, and disjointed, the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 6
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 

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES 

The court is further concerned that plaintiff’s complaint violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 

because it appears to be bought for the sole purpose of harassing the defendants. While their 

filings are construed liberally, plaintiffs appearing in pro se must follow the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. See, e.g., Briones v. 

Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (“pro se litigants are not excused from 

following court rules”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that an attorney or 

unrepresented party must certify that its filings are “not being presented for any improper 

purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). When a plaintiff violates a court order or court rule, Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b) provides a basis for dismissal. In considering whether involuntary 

dismissal is appropriate, the court considers: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic alternatives.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 

2019) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). These factors merely guide the court’s 

inquiry; they are not conditions precedent for dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Here, the court is concerned, based on the complaint’s own acknowledgement plaintiff has 

filed multiple cases in multiple forums against the defendants, that that this case was brought for 

the sole purpose of harassing the defendants. ECF No. 1 at n.25. The concerns raised by the 

footnote are heightened by plaintiff’s history of litigation against these defendants in this district, 

described below. 

On January 4, 2019, plaintiff appeared in pro se and in forma pauperis and filed a 

complaint against HCUSD and several of its employees and directors alleging that defendants 

acted under color of law to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Harrell v. Hornbrook 

Community Services District, 2:19-cv-0031 KJM AC (“Harrell II”). In Harrell II, plaintiff was 

provided three opportunities to amend his complaint. The final version of the complaint in 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 6
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 

Harrell II was difficult to decipher, but largely consisted of disjointed allegations related to 

HCUSD conspiracies. For example, plaintiff alleged that HCUSD and its employees “were part 

of a systematic and ongoing pattern of negligence, malfeasance/nonfeasance, and acts that were 

calculated to, and actually did: wrongfully enrich the Defendants; damage the ability of the 

HCSD to provide safe, potable water to the public and to Plaintiff, injure Plaintiff financially, 

physically, and emotionally; interfere with Plaintiff’s enjoyment and use of his property; damage 

and reduce Plaintiff’s real property values; and, damage, seize and/or convert Plaintiffs’ personal 

property without due process – all with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s legal rights.” Harrell 

II, ECF No. 17 at 5. Harrell II was ultimately dismissed on screening for repeated failures to 

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint contain a short and 

plain statement of the grounds for legal relief. Harrell II, ECF Nos. 19, 22, 23. Harrell II, 

however, was not plaintiff’s first case against HCSD and its employees and directors. 

On September 7, 2014, plaintiff brought his initial case against HCUSD and its employees 

and directors. Harrell v. Hornbrook Community Services District, 2:14-cv-01595 KJM GGH 

(Harrell I). The complaint in Harrell I was like the complaints in Harrell II and Harrell III in that 

it consisted of 27 pages of convoluted allegations related to various conspiracies and misconduct 

on the part of defendants. Harrell I at ECF No. 1. Following nearly three years of attempted 

amended complaints and obstructive litigation practices on the part of plaintiff, Magistrate Judge 

Gregory G. Hollows issued Findings and Recommendations that the case be dismissed because 

plaintiff’s litigation tactics evidenced “a desire to wage a war of attrition on the opposing parties . 

. . [with] no desire on plaintiff’s part to ever reach the merits of a viable claim; rather, there seems 

to be much desire to use the litigation process per se as an end in itself.” Harrell I at ECF No. 157 

at 1-2. Following a discussion of plaintiff’s extensive litigation misconduct, Judge Hollows 

recommended dismissal with prejudice “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for 

failure to obey a court order, or in the alternative pursuant to Rule12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

claim.” Id. at 15. The recommendation was adopted by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and 

judgment was entered. Harrell I at ECF Nos. 159, 160. Fees and costs were awarded against 

plaintiff, and the award was upheld by the Ninth Circuit which found that the award was 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 6
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 

appropriate because Harrell “evidenced bad faith in multiplying the proceedings in this case 

unreasonably and vexatiously.” Harrell I at ECF No. 213 (internal citation omitted). 

In the case at bar, Harrell III, it appears that plaintiff intends to continue a pattern of 

litigious harassment against the defendants. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, n.25. The Eastern District of 

California is incredibly impacted and overburdened with respect to caseload, and litigation 

instigated for the sole purpose of harassment will not be tolerated. For this reason, plaintiff is 

given an opportunity to explain to the court why this case was not brought in violation Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11. 

IV. ORDER and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff must show cause 

in writing within 21 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. Plaintiff shall file (1) an amended complaint that addresses the 

problems in the current complaint, and (2) an affidavit explaining why this case does not violate 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. If plaintiff fails to respond of if the documents submitted do 

not cure the problems set forth above, the undersigned will recommend this case be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 

whichever is appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2023 

Case 2:23-cv-01448-DC-DMC Document 5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 6