Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03029/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03029-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER WARREN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-3029-LAB (BLM)

 ORDER STRIKING NOTICE OF

LIS PENDENS; AND

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO REFRAIN FROM

THREATENING TO SUE OR

PROSECUTE

vs.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff Roger Warren, proceeding pro se, filed his

complaint, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and a notice of lis pendens. The

Court on January 2, 2013 granted Warren’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but

screened and dismissed his complaint, ordering him to file an amended and concise

complaint within three weeks. 

A notice of lis pendens is a creature of California state law. Under Cal. Code Civ.

Proc. § 405.21, notices of lis pendens may be signed by an attorney of record or by a judge

of the court in which the action is pending. That section directs unrepresented party to

request the judge to sign the notice, and recognizes the judge's authority to approve such

notices. That same section provides:

A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been

signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria

persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the

action is subject to Section 405.6.

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-03029-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Warren has not requested the Court's approval or signature, and the notice contains no

space for the Court's signature anything else that would indicate he is asking for the Court's

approval of the notice. The other exceptions don't apply.

The explanatory notes to § 405.21 make clear that the Court's approval is required

to prevent misuse of such notices: "[t]he court's duty to review a lis pendens proposed by

a party in propria persona prior to [its] recordation is intended to aid in avoiding abuse of . . . 

lis pendens procedures in actions prosecuted by parties in propria persona." Here, that

purpose is particularly important because no claims are pending in this case, and because

the notice is unacceptable in its present form.

The notice Warren filed purports to be not only a notice of lis pendens, but also a writ

of attachment on both tangible and intangible property located at a particular property parcel. 

It also purports to attach all bank accounts, inventory, stock certificates, notes of obligation,

patents, copyrights, interests in contracts, mineral and water rights, domestic furnishings,

equipment, and various other types of property either possessed by “Respondent(s)” (i.e.,

Defendants) or in their control. The notice continues with a discussion of various other legal

ideas. 

The notice also threatens with criminal prosecution anyone, including federal or state

officers, legislators, or any judge who attempts to “modify, circumvent, and/or negate” the

notice, and to strip the Court of any immunity from civil immunity and hold it civilly liable.

(Notice at 4:1–8.) It includes specific threats to sue any judge who attempts to modify or

have the notice removed, and argues that there would be no immunity from such suit. It cites

various Supreme Court decisions supposedly forbidding any judge from having a notice of

lis pendens removed. (Id. at 4:9–5:10.) The notice declares that all these statements are true

and correct to the best of Warren’s knowledge and belief, under penalty of perjury. (Id. at

5:11–15.)

The Court understands Warren may be using inflated rhetoric in an effort to

emphasize the strength of his legal position, as he sees it. Such threats are obviously hollow;

Warren cannot sue any judge for making rulings adverse to him, and he cannot criminally

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-03029-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 3
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

prosecute anyone. But the amount of verbiage devoted to these warnings, together with

Warren’s oath that all the contents of the notice are true to the best of his knowledge and

belief, suggest this is not intended as mere hyperbole. Rather, it appears Warren is

attempting to influence the outcome of this litigation by means of such threats, hollow though

they may be. This is not permissible. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (holding

that, because judges must decide all cases within their jurisdiction, including controversial

cases that arouse intense emotions in litigants, judges must not be allowed to be intimidated

with threats of lawsuits). Nor is it a proper purpose for filing the notice of lis pendens. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). 

The threats also have the improper effect of threatening with civil and criminal

penalties anyone legitimately attempting to have the notice expunged, or anyone who might

be carrying out an order by the Court to expunge or remove it. And the notice as a whole

purports to attach Defendants’ property, which Warren has no power or right to do.

The notice of lis pendens is therefore ordered STRICKEN and the Clerk shall remove

it from the docket. The Court will, however, retain a file copy. Warren is ORDERED to refrain

from filing any more notices of lis pendens in connection with this case, or causing any

notice of lis pendens to be recorded in any state office in connection with this case. If he has

already recorded one, he is ORDERED to withdraw it forthwith. Or, if Warren is unable to

withdraw a notice he has filed, he must forthwith file a notice in the docket in this case, giving

details of the recordation so that the Court can order it expunged. Warren is also ORDERED

to refrain from threatening to sue or prosecute the Court or anyone else for interfering with

rights claimed in the notice of lis pendens. Any violations of this order may result in

sanctions, including dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-03029-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/13 Page 3 of 3