Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04575/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald M. George
Defendant
Mathew M. Lakota
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

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 DISMISSING COMPLAINT;

DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his

complaint, both of which were filed September 4, 2007.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis, the district court must dismiss the complaint if the court determines that the

complaint is frivolous or malicious, or that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint falls within the category of pleadings identified in

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court of California, County of

Butte, has issued an order declaring plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant, and that said state

court denied plaintiff’s petition to rescind the vexatious litigant order. (See Compl. ¶¶ 9,

23.) Plaintiff also alleges the California Court of Appeal denied his petition for a writ of

mandamus with respect to the state court’s decision denying his petition to rescind the

Case 3:07-cv-04575-MMC Document 7 Filed 09/17/07 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

1

Section 391(b)(1) defines “vexatious litigant” as a person who “[i]n the immediately

preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria

persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally

determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least

two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.” 

2

vexatious litigant order. (See Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff further alleges that § 391(b)(1) of the

California Code of Civil Procedure is unconstitutional,1

 and that he is entitled to a

declaration to such effect and to an injunction directing the Judicial Council of California to

remove plaintiff’s name from a list of vexatious litigants.

A district court “may not adjudicate claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the

merits of a judgment rendered in a state court proceeding,” see G.C. and K.B. Investments,

Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F. 3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003), even if the claims present “federal

constitutional issues,” see Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F. 3d 1026, 1030

(9th Cir. 2001). Here, plaintiff’s claim that § 391(b)(1) is unconstitutional is inextricably

intertwined with the state court’s decision declaring plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant, as

well as the state court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition to rescind said order; the Court

could not find in favor of plaintiff on his constitutional claims without holding that the state

court’s decisions were improper. See id. at 1027, 1030 (holding federal district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider claim challenging “correctness under federal law of the state court’s

order” because “district court could not have found in favor of [plaintiff] without holding that

the state court had erred”).

Accordingly, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04575-MMC Document 7 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2