Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLAN FLETCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLENDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00249-AWI-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

(1) TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A 

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; (2) FOR AN 

ORDER FOR SECURITY; (3) FOR ENTRY 

OF A PREFILING ORDER; AND (4) 

REQUEST FOR STAY

(ECF No. 25)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Allan Fletcher (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to 

the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are considered civil detainees and are 

not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against 

Defendants Clendenin and Price for failure to treat Plaintiff under the Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process Clause due to their official policy.

I. Defendants’ Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

On November 17, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 

(ECF No. 25.) Following the expiration of the opposition deadline, Defendants filed a reply on 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/27/23 Page 1 of 5
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

January 6, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff timely 

filed an opposition on February 6, 2023. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Defendants filed a supplemental 

reply on February 21, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Defendants move, pursuant to Local Rule 151(b), for: (1) an order declaring Plaintiff a 

vexatious litigant; (2) an order requiring Plaintiff to post security in the amount of $5,000 before 

further litigating this case; (3) a prefiling order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation 

in the courts of this State in propia persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge 

where the action is commenced; and (4) an order staying this action until the motion is ruled on. 

(ECF No. 25.) Defendants state that Local Rule 151(b) expressly adopts the provisions of the 

California Code of Civil Procedure on the issue of vexatious litigants and sets forth California’s 

vexatious litigant statutes at sections 391–391.6. Defendants contend that Plaintiff is a vexatious 

litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1 because he has commenced, prosecuted, and 

maintained at least nine civil actions in state and federal court that were finally determined 

against him in the last seven years. In addition, Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail in the instant case 

because it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and therefore he should be required to post 

security. Finally, a prefiling order is appropriate to deter Plaintiff’s pattern of unmeritorious 

litigation, and the Court should stay the case until the motion is denied or, if the motion is 

granted, until the required security has been furnished. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s screening order, adopted in full by the thenassigned District Judge, precludes the filing of Defendants’ motion because it found that Plaintiff 

stated cognizable claims. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff further contends that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, the relief sought in this action will serve the public interest, and granting the relief 

requested by Defendants will broadly infringe on Plaintiff’s access to the Court in matters 

unrelated to state custody or process and would arguably be unconstitutional. Plaintiff further 

argues that in all the prior and pending cases cited as examples of his vexatiousness, he has done 

his best to follow court rules and act appropriately. (Id.)

In reply, Defendants argue that their motion is not unconstitutional, the Court’s screening 

order does not serve as a defense against Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff has misrepresented the 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/27/23 Page 2 of 5
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

outcome of at least one of his prior lawsuits and otherwise fails to dispute that the prior adverse 

decisions qualify him as a vexatious litigant, and Plaintiff has failed to address Defendants’

evidence establishing that they are likely to prevail. (ECF No. 30.)

II. Legal Standards

“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against 

vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation.” Weissman v. Quail Lodge, 

Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th 

Cir. 1990)). The Eastern District of California has adopted the California Code of Civil 

Procedure as it relates to vexatious litigants, without limiting the power of the Court. Local Rule 

151(b). Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, “a defendant may move the court, upon 

notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security” subject to a showing 

“that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that he or she 

will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1.

While California law provides the procedure for declaring a litigant vexatious, the federal 

substantive law governs the determination, as the power is derived from the All Writs Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1651(a). Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007).

Under federal law, pre-filing orders are considered an extreme remedy, and should be used 

cautiously to avoid prejudice to a litigant’s due process right of access to the courts. Id. Four 

requirements must be met before declaring a litigant vexatious and entering a pre-filing order: 

(1) provide the litigant notice and a chance to be heard, (2) create an adequate record for review, 

(3) make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions, and 

(4) ensure any pre-filing order is “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.”

De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147–48.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the court must make a specific finding of “bad faith or 

conduct tantamount to bad faith” prior to imposing pre-filing sanctions against a vexatious 

litigant. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). “To make such a finding, the district 

court needs to look at both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of 

the litigant’s claims.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 (citations and internal quotation marks 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/27/23 Page 3 of 5
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

omitted). In other words, “[a]n injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. 

The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Moy v. 

United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion

To the extent Plaintiff argues that California’s vexatious litigant statute itself is 

unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit has found that it is not vague or overbroad, because it gives 

fair notice to those who might violate the statute and there is no constitutional right to file 

frivolous litigation. Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s argument 

that the imposition of a pre-filing order or a security requirement would hinder his constitutional 

rights is therefore unavailing. Under the statute, a vexatious litigant may nevertheless file 

potentially meritorious claims that are not intended solely to harass or delay. Id.

As to whether imposition of a pre-filing order or a security requirement is appropriate

here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “qualifies as a vexatious litigant under California’s statutory 

scheme.” (ECF No. 25-1, p. 17.) However, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff meets the 

federal standard for a vexatious litigant. While Defendants generally characterize Plaintiff’s 

filings and complaints as unmeritorious and frivolous, the crux of the motion focuses on the 

number of unsuccessful lawsuits filed. But simply demonstrating that Plaintiff has filed and lost a 

certain number of lawsuits is insufficient for the Court to make the specific finding of “bad faith 

or conduct tantamount to bad faith” required under federal law. Fink, 239 F.3d at 994. 

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail due to the doctrine of res judicata, while 

potentially dispositive of the instant action, is insufficient for the Court to make the specific 

finding of bad faith required to grant the relief requested in Defendants’ motion.

Based on the information currently before the Court, Defendants have failed to meet their 

burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under the applicable federal legal 

standards. As Defendants have failed to make a threshold showing that Plaintiff is a vexatious 

litigant under federal law, the Court declines to address Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is not 

likely to succeed on the merits in this case.1

1 Defendants are not precluded from raising the issue of res judicata in a later motion to dismiss.

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/27/23 Page 4 of 5
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

With respect to Defendants’ request to stay this action, the Court finds a stay unnecessary. 

At this time, there are no pending deadlines, and the Court will issue an order setting any new 

deadlines following the resolution of Defendants’ motion.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to 

declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, (ECF No. 25), be DENIED, without prejudice to refiling a 

motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant that is consistent with the legal standards discussed 

above.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/27/23 Page 5 of 5