Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01688/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01688-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

VESTER L. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE 

DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Petitioner Vester L. Patterson, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 12, 2018. ECF No. 1. Before this petition, 

petitioner initiated at least 40 other matters in this district. All closed matters were either denied 

on the merits, dismissed for failure to comply with procedural rules, or transferred to another 

district.1 Because petitioner’s behavior constitutes an abuse of judicial resources, we order him to 

show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. 

Background

Petitioner is in the custody of CDCR pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of 

California, County of Los Angeles. Petitioner pleaded guilty on April 27, 2011 to one count of 

forcible rape and one count of forcible oral copulation. On May 9, 2011, petitioner was sentenced 

 

1 Two cases are still pending: the instant case and Patterson v. HIP-C Committee, et al., Case No. 

1:19-cv-01401-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019).

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 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

to 32 years in state prison. Since that time, petitioner has filed at least 21 petitions for habeas 

corpus in this district, none of which has been successful.2 Petitioner filed nine habeas petitions 

in either the wrong district or wrong division, consuming substantial judicial resources. Petitioner 

filed and voluntarily dismissed an additional four habeas petitions, again wasting judicial 

resources. The remaining petitions were all dismissed at screening for various deficiencies or 

procedural defects, such as failure to comply with the rule against second or successive petitions, 

failure to exhaust state level remedies, failure to state a claim, failure to meet the statute of 

limitations, and failure to pay the filing fee. 

Petitioner has also filed at least 20 prisoner civil rights cases in this district. Of these 20, 

six were transferred to the appropriate district, six were dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, 

two were voluntarily dismissed by petitioner, two were dismissed for failure to state a claim, one 

 

2

See Patterson v. Sisto et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00091-JKS-EFB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) 

(dismissed for failure to pay filing fee); Patterson v. Swarthout, Case No. 2:11-cv-02492-CMK 

(HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (voluntary dismissal by plaintiff); Patterson v. Diaz, Case No. 

2:12-cv-02342-GGH (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012) (case transferred to correct district); 

Patterson v. Knipp, Case No. 1:13-cv-01082-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (case 

transferred to correct district); Patterson v. On Habeas Corpus, Case No. 1:14-cv-01400-BAM 

(HC) (E.D. Cal. November 4, 2014) (failure to exhaust state court remedies); Patterson v. 

Sherman, Case No. 1:15-cv-01295-GSA (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015); Patterson v. Sherman, 

Case No. 1:15-cv-00053-LJO-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2015) (dismissed for failure to meet 

statute of limitations) (case transferred to correct district); Patterson v. Martinez, Case No. 2:16-

cv-00842-CKD (HC) (E. D. Cal. April 29, 2016) (case transferred to correct district); Patterson v. 

Lacker, Case No. 2:15-cv-02395-AC (HC) (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2016) (case transferred to correct 

venue); Patterson v. Martinez, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01618-GGH (HC) (E.D. Cal. July 19, 

2016) (case transferred to correct district); Patterson v. Lacker, Case No. 1:16-cv-00618-DADSAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (voluntary dismissal by petitioner); Patterson v. Martinez et 

al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00444-KJN (HC) (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2017) (case transferred to correct 

district); Patterson v. Martinez, Case No. 1:16-cv-01215-LJO-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. May 12, 

2017) (dismissed as successive); Patterson v. Sullivan, Case No. 2:18-cv-01031-MCE-CMK 

(HC) (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2018) (case transferred to correct district); Patterson v. Sullivan, Case 

No. 2:18-cv-01270-CMK (HC) (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2018) (case transferred to correct division); 

Patterson v. Sullivan, Case No. 1:18-cv-00593-LJO-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2018) 

(voluntary dismissal by petitioner); Patterson v. Sullivan, Case No. 1:18-cv-00705-LJO-JDP 

(HC) (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2018) (voluntary dismissal by petitioner); Patterson v. Sullivan, Case 

No. 1:18-cv-00038-DAD-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim and failure to exhaust); Patterson v. Sullivan, Case No. 1:18-cv-00361-DAD-EPG (HC) 

(E.D. Cal. March 29, 2019) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Patterson v. United States 

District Court Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:18-cv-01202-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. 

May 15, 2019) (dismissed as successive).

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 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

is pending, one was converted to a different claim, one was dismissed on a motion to dismiss, and 

one was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.3 Petitioner has a history of abusing the 

court system by making frivolous court filings. Petitioner was declared a vexatious litigant in our 

neighboring court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because 

his seven unsuccessful habeas corpus petitions there were deemed an abuse of that court’s 

process. See Patterson v. Ratelle, Case No. 2:99-cv-00369-CM-RC (C.D. Cal. April 29, 1999).

Vexatious Litigant

A district court has the power under the All Writs Act to place certain requirements on 

individuals who have lengthy histories of abusive litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Federal 

courts may “regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions 

under . . . appropriate circumstances.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 

1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

“Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to 

preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of 

other litigants.” DeLong, 912 F.3d at 1148; see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 

F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

 

3

See Patterson v. Carr, et al., Case. No. 1:97-cv-06242-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 1997); 

Patterson v. Schwarznegger et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02751-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2006); 

Patterson v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Case No. 2:06-cv-02752-

LKK-KJM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2006); Patterson v. Brown, Case No. 2:11-cv-02879-DAD (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 1, 2011); Patterson v. Zuniga et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-02970-EFB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 

2011); Patterson v. Leslie, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-01086-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2012); 

Patterson v. Leslie et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01111-EFB (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2013); Patterson v. 

Diaz, Case No. 1:13-at-00689 *SEALED* (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013); Patterson v. Diaz, Case 

No. 1:13-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013); Patterson v. Beard et al., Case No. 

1:15-cv-00172-BAM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015); Patterson v. Beard et al., Case No. 2:15-cv00290-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015); Patterson v. Wong Do et al., Case No. 2:15-cv02117-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2015); Patterson v. CDCR, et al., Case. No. 2:16-at-00200 

*SEALED* (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2016); Patterson v. Kelso, Case. No. 2:16-at-00410 *SEALED*

(E.D. Cal. April 6, 2016); Patterson v. Kelso, Case No. 2:16-cv-00719-AC (E.D. Cal. April 6, 

2016); Patterson v. Harris, Case. No. 2:16-cv-01994-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016); 

Patterson v. California Correctional Health Care Services et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00224-DADEPG (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017); Patterson v. California Department of Correction and 

Rehabilitation et al., No. 1:17-cv-01428-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017); Patterson v. 

CDCR, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00368-CMK (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2019); Patterson v. HIP-C 

Committee, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01401-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019).

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 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

The court may issue an order declaring a litigant to be a vexatious litigant and require the 

litigant to seek permission from the court prior to filing any future suits. See Weissman v. Quail 

Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999); DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1146-47. To issue such 

order, the court must ensure that: (1) the petitioner was given adequate notice to oppose a 

restrictive pre-filing order; (2) there is an adequate record of case filings to show the petitioner is 

abusing the judicial system; (3) there are substantive findings as to the frivolousness or harassing 

nature of the petitioner’s filings; and (4) the order is narrowly tailored to remedy only the 

petitioner’s particular abuses. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990); 

DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147-49.

In determining whether to declare a litigant vexatious, the court should consider: “(1) the 

litigant’s history of litigation and whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits;

(2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation . . .; (3) whether the litigant is represented by 

counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an 

unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be 

adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Safir v. U.S. 

Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)). 

Here, petitioner meets the requirements of O’Loughlin and Molski. Petitioner has filed at 

least 40 habeas or prisoner civil rights actions in this court, without counsel. All closed cases 

were unsuccessful—they were dismissed or transferred for the above-stated reasons. Many of 

petitioner’s cases have been voluntarily dismissed by petitioner himself or dismissed by this court 

for his failure to pay the filing fee, thereby wasting judicial resources. Many of the filings were 

duplicative and few, if any, had a chance of success on the merits. Petitioner caused this court to

engage in additional work, such as preparing transfer and dismissal orders. This court has

repeatedly counseled petitioner on the proper requirements for filing a federal habeas petition and 

a prisoner civil rights complaint, but he has ignored the court’s orders and continued to file 

frivolous petitions subject to dismissal. In the Central District, petitioner was warned that further 

attempts to file frivolous actions would lead to him being declared a vexatious litigant. Petitioner 

did not heed that court’s warnings and he was declared a vexatious litigant. Petitioner’s ability to 

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 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

file new actions without court approval was restricted. Petitioner is ordered to show cause why 

he should not be declared a vexatious litigant in this district. 

If petitioner is found to be a vexatious litigant, we will recommend that a pre-filing order 

be issued requiring him to obtain leave of court before filing any habeas petition or prisoner civil 

rights complaint or any document in a habeas or prisoner civil rights case that is closed and final. 

Petitioner will be required to submit a copy of the court’s vexatious litigant order and a copy of 

the proposed filing with any motion seeking leave of court to file a new habeas or prisoner civil 

rights action or any document in such a case that is closed and final. We do not find that lessor 

sanctions would be adequate to protect this court’s resources.

Order

Petitioner is ordered to show cause why the court should not deem him a vexatious litigant 

within fourteen days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:18-cv-01688-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 Page 5 of 5