Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00629/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00629-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Estate of Mary Ann Spitters
Defendant
Thomas Heaton Spitters
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS HEATON SPITTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTATE OF MARY ANN SPITTERS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00629-NC 

REQUEST FOR 

REASSIGNMENT; REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED, THAT MR. 

SPITTERS BE DECLARED A 

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, AND 

THAT A PRE-FILING ORDER 

BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM

This Order follows up on the Court’s March 6, 2019, order to show cause why it 

should not declare plaintiff Thomas Heaton Spitters a vexatious litigant. Dkt. No. 6. The 

Court finds that Mr. Spitters’s filings are frivolous and harassing, and recommends entry 

of a pre-filing order requiring Mr. Spitters to obtain leave of court before filing any further 

suits against any defendants in this District. The Court also recommends that the 

complaint in this matter be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim.

I. Background

The Court provided a complete analysis of Mr. Spitters’s filings at Dkt. No. 6 and 

only summarizes that discussion here. Plaintiff Thomas Heaton Spitters has filed fourteen 

cases in this district since 2015. In twelve of those cases, his applications to proceed in 

forma pauperis were denied, and thirteen of them were dismissed with leave to amend for 

failure to state a claim. Mr. Spitters regularly sends letters, objections, motions, emails, 

and other updates to the court, including in cases that have closed. No defendant of Mr. 

Case 3:19-cv-00629-JD Document 11 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Spitters’s has ever been served and zero of his cases have settled or resulted in any 

recovery. See Dkt. No. 6. 

Concerned that Mr. Spitters’s filings have been frivolous and harassing, this Court 

ordered Mr. Spitters to show cause why it should not declare him a vexatious litigant. Dkt. 

No. 6. In that Order, the Court analyzed both the number and content of Mr. Spitters’s 

filings under De Long and determined that his claims were numerous and patently without 

merit. De Long v. Hennesey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty 

Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). Using the factors set forth in RinggoldLockhart, the Court also determined that Mr. Spitters’s litigation is frivolous. RinggoldLockhart v. Cnty. of L.A., 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court found that the 

factors weighed in favor of declaring Mr. Spitters a vexatious litigant. Dkt. No. 6 at 12. 

Desiring to give Mr. Spitters ample opportunity to be heard on this issue, the Court 

ordered Mr. Spitters to respond in writing to its Order and to appear at a hearing scheduled 

for April 10, 2019. Dkt. No. 6. Mr. Spitters provided a written response but did not 

appear at the hearing. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. In addition, Mr. Spitters placed multiple phone calls 

to the courtroom deputy regarding this matter and left two lengthy messages in her voice 

mailbox. See Dkt. No. 10 (voicemail transcripts). Mr. Spitters later filed another

document with two and a half pages of largely incomprehensible material. Dkt. No. 9. 

In his written response to the order to show cause, Mr. Spitters provided further 

information about his complaint in this case and expressed appreciation for the court’s 

attention to his many filings. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. He also explained that his repeated failure to 

complete sufficient IFP applications was due to his wish for his financial condition to 

remain confidential, where IFP applications are typically filed in the ECF system as public, 

unredacted court documents. Id. The Court appreciates Mr. Spitters drawing its attention 

to this concern. While a certain minimum amount of information about an applicant’s 

financial status is necessary to determine whether he or she qualifies to proceed in forma 

pauperis, the public filing of this information may be uncomfortable for some applicants. 

Mr. Spitters’s IFP application in this case, which the Court has already denied, will be filed 

Case 3:19-cv-00629-JD Document 11 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

under seal to protect his privacy. Dkt. Nos. 3, 6.

II. Show of Cause

The Court finds that Mr. Spitters has not shown cause as to why he should not be 

declared a vexatious litigant. Mr. Spitters’s written responses to this Court’s Order 

includes much of the same unwarranted, verbose, and confusing detail about the complaint 

in this matter that he often files in his cases. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. He states that “in the event 

the court wishes to pursue and then to deny plaintiff’s filings based solely upon sufficiency 

requirements of the court, the plaintiff wishes to bring to the attention of the court the 

situation of the death, again long ago, of plaintiff’s actual, hereditary mother,” and 

proceeds to detail further background on his claims. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. This additional 

information about the claims in the instant case does not address the Court’s order to show 

cause why it should not declare Mr. Spitters a vexatious litigant.

III. Declaration of Vexatious Litigant and Entry of Pre-Filing Order

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, all parties must consent to magistrate jurisdiction before a 

magistrate judge may enter judgment in a case. This includes parties who have not been 

served. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither Mr. Spitters nor any 

defendants have consented to magistrate jurisdiction in this case. As such, the undersigned

cannot dismiss this case or enter a pre-filing order against Mr. Spitters.

Accordingly, the undersigned requests that the clerk reassign this case to a district 

court judge and recommends under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 that the district 

court judge declare Mr. Spitters a vexatious litigant and order that the following pre-filing 

order be entered against him:

Mr. Spitters must obtain leave of court before filing any further suits against any 

defendants in this District. The Clerk of this Court shall not accept for filing any 

further complaints by Mr. Spitters until that complaint has first been reviewed by a 

judge of this court and approved for filing. The pre-filing review will be made by 

the general duty judge who will determine whether Mr. Spitters has stated a 

potentially cognizable claim in a short, intelligible, and plain statement. If the judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00629-JD Document 11 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

determines that the complaint is duplicative or frivolous, it will not be filed and will 

be returned to Mr. Spitters. If the complaint is neither duplicative nor frivolous, it 

will be given to the Clerk with instructions to file it. 

Finally, the undersigned recommends that the complaint in this case be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim for the reasons stated at Dkt. No. 6. 

Any party may object to this report and recommendation within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00629-JD Document 11 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 4