Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04575/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04575-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATHEW M. LAKOTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHIEF JUSTICE RONALD M. GEORGE,

Defendant /

No. C-07-4575 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Decision,” filed

October 9, 2007, by which plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 17,

2007 dismissal of his complaint.

In his complaint, plaintiff sought a declaration that § 391(b)(1) of the California Code

of Civil Procedure, which addresses vexatious litigants, is unconstitutional, and an

injunction directing the Judicial Council of California to remove plaintiff’s name from a list of

vexatious litigants. In dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found plaintiff’s claims were

“inextricably intertwined with the merits of a judgment rendered in a state court proceeding,”

specifically a state trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition to rescind an earlier-issued order

placing plaintiff’s name on a list of vexatious litigants, as well as the California Court of

Appeal’s denial of plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus with respect to said state

court’s decision. (See Order Dismissing Complaint at 1:23-2:18.)

Case 3:07-cv-04575-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff argues that the Court erred, in light of Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F. 3d 358

(9th Cir. 2004), which found that the district court therein had jurisdiction to consider a

plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of a vexatious litigant statute. See id. at 362-64. 

Unlike the instant case, however, “there was no vexatious litigant order entered against [the

plaintiff in Wolfe] at the time he filed in district court.” See id. at 363. Consequently, the

holding in Wolfe does not assist plaintiff herein.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04575-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2