Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03151/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03151-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yohonia Martin
Plaintiff
Redwood City Dental Care
Defendant

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

YOHONIA MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDWOOD CITY DENTAL CARE,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03151-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE 

DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 

AND REQUIRED TO OBTAIN LEAVE 

OF COURT BEFORE FILING ANY 

NEW ACTION

Re: ECF No. 1

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff Yohonia Martin filed a complaint in this Court against Redwood 

City Dental Care. ECF No. 1. On August 5, 2015, the Court granted leave for Martin to proceed 

in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, finding

that the complaint did not expressly state any cause of action or cite to any statute or legal 

authority. ECF No. 5 at 1–3. Martin filed an Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015, ECF No. 

6. Martin subsequently filed two “Motion[s] to Submit New Evidence.” ECF Nos. 7, 8. The 

Court reviewed Martin’s Amended Complaint and could not discern any viable theory or ground 

for relief. ECF No. 9. The Court therefore dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice on 

September 22, 2015 and denied her “Motions to Submit New Evidence” as moot. Id.

This is not Martin’s first attempt to litigate a meritless complaint. A search of Martin’s 

name in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database reveals that this action 

constitutes Martin’s tenth attempt to litigate in the Northern District. Nine of Martin’s complaints 

were dismissed for naming defendants who are immune from suit, failing to state a claim, or lack 

of jurisdiction. All of her complaints were largely incoherent. 

As detailed below, most of Martin’s lawsuits have been meritless and frivolous. 

Accordingly, the Court will issue an Order to Show Cause why Martin should not be declared a 

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 8
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

vexatious litigant and required to obtain leave of court before filing any new action. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power 

to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 

F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). “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.” De Long v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 

(9th Cir. 1990). To determine whether a litigant is “vexatious,” courts consider, among other 

factors, the number and nature of the litigant’s court filings, the litigant’s motive in submitting 

those filings, and whether the litigant’s filings have caused other parties needless expense or 

imposed an unnecessary burden on the courts or court staff. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057–58 

(applying the factors from Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Cir. 1986)).

B. Record 

1. Wells Fargo Litigation 

On January 13, 2012, Martin filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”). 

Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No.12-cv-00244-MEJ, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012). 

On November 14, 2012 the parties settled. ECF No. 43.1 Because of the settlement, the court 

dismissed the case with prejudice on February 11, 2013. ECF No. 44. On May 11, 2015, Martin 

filed three documents entitled “Request and Authorization for Expert Services,” apparently 

seeking reimbursement for costs associated with her lawsuit against Wells Fargo. ECF No. 50. 

Because the court did not retain jurisdiction when it dismissed the case with prejudice, the court 

denied Martin’s request. ECF No. 51. Martin then filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. 

ECF No. 52. On August 12, 2015 the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s 

decision, stating “the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further 

argument.” ECF No. 58. 

 

1

ECF citations in this paragraph refer to Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No.12-cv-00244-MEJ 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012).

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 8
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

On August 29, 2013, Martin, a state prisoner at the time, filed another complaint against 

Wells Fargo, challenging the “legitimacy of actual banking institution.” Martin v. Wells Fargo

Bank, Case No. 13-cv-04022-HRL, ECF No. 1 at 4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013). On November 12, 

2013 the court granted Martin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 2 The court 

also dismissed Martin’s complaint with leave to amend because she failed to state a cognizable 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 9. Martin never filed an amended complaint, and the 

court dismissed the case without prejudice on January 6, 2014. ECF No. 11. 

On January 6, 2014, Martin again filed a complaint against Wells Fargo. Martin v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, Case No. 14-cv-00081-MEJ, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014). The court 

interpreted Martin’s handwritten complaint as attempting to allege that Wells Fargo failed to 

comply with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement in Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, 12-cv00244-MEJ. ECF No. 6 at 1.3

The court dismissed the complaint because the court lacked 

jurisdiction. Id. Martin then filed three handwritten letters. ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10. In one letter, 

Martin appeared to request an appeal. ECF No. 9. The court denied Martin’s request to appeal, 

noting that the proper course of action was for Martin to bring her appeal before the Ninth Circuit. 

ECF No. 11. 

2. 2014 Litigation 

a. Green Dot Corporation 

On January 14, 2014, Martin, a state prisoner at the time, filed a complaint against Green 

Dot Corporation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that “the refunds in question are not being 

allowed by Green Dot Corporation” and that there were “three accounts that are unable to have 

been used for the services purchased.” Martin v. Green Dot Corp., Case No. 14-cv-00206-YGR, 

ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Martin requested $50,000 in damages. Id. On February 26, 

2014, the court granted Martin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 11. The court 

dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failing to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. 

 

2

ECF citations in this paragraph refer to Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 13-cv-04022-HRL 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013).

3

ECF citations in this paragraph refer to Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 14-cv-00081-MEJ 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014).

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 8
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

§ 1983 as the allegations involved purely private conduct. ECF No. 12.

3. 2015 Litigation 

a. Redwood City Library

On May 1, 2015, Martin filed a complaint against the Redwood City Library. Martin v. 

Redwood City Library, Case No. 15-cv-01988-KAW, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015).

4

 

Martin asserted federal question jurisdiction for alleged violations of “Freedom of Information 

Acts (sic), deprivations of right to privacy, libel, slander, and copyright violations.” Id. In her 

complaint, Martin made several allegations such as “[t]he evening and weekend staff of the 

Redwood City Library regularly charge me for items with no written closure statement[,]” and 

“[h]ave changed wordings of class assignment and presentations so I appear as if I am illiterate 

uneducated and unlearned. Have placed messages in my essays such a sss and then the essay 

disappears.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 5. In her demand for relief, Martin described various issues with a laptop 

she checked out on April 29, 2015 and stated her claim was for emotional distress. Id. ¶ 6.

The court granted Martin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on May 14, 2015. ECF 

No. 5. The court then dismissed Martin’s complaint with leave to amend, noting that “[t]he Court 

cannot discern the causes of action Plaintiff intends to allege against the Redwood City Library.” 

ECF No. 5 at 3.

Martin filed an amended complaint on August 10, 2015. ECF No. 19. Martin’s amended 

complaint did not remedy the deficiencies in the first compliant, and the court dismissed the 

amended complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 24. 

b. Miller

Martin filed a complaint against Robert Miller on May 12, 2015. Martin v. Miller, No. 15-

cv-02136-DMR, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2015).

5

 Martin alleged that she went to a 

“designated meeting place” believed to be owned by Defendant Miller. ECF No. 1 at 1. Martin

then alleged a series of events involving an agreement about the storage of blueprints, being 

 

4 All ECF citations in this section refer to Martin v. Redwood City Library, Case No. 15-cv01988-KAW, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015).

5 All ECF citations in this section refer to Martin v. Miller, No. 15-cv-02136-DMR, ECF No. 1 

(N.D. Cal. May 12, 2015).

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

arrested after Defendant’s wife called the police on Martin, and then learning that the woman was 

not actually married to the Defendant. Id. at 1–2. The court granted Martin’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and because Martin failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, noting that 

“Plaintiff does not specify a cause of action against Defendant, and the court is unable to figure 

out what claim or claims Plaintiff seeks to allege.” Id. at 3.

On July 9, 2015, Martin filed a document labeled “Opening Brief.” ECF No. 6. The court 

construed this “Opening Brief” as an amended complaint. ECF No. 9 at 1. Martin filed a “Motion 

to Amend” and a “Fact to Be Considered By The Court.” ECF Nos. 7, 8. The court found that 

Martin’s documents were “difficult to understand” and did not cure the defaults in the original 

complaint. ECF No. 9 at 1–2. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case. On August 20, 2015, 

Martin appealed to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 11. 

c. James

Martin filed a complaint against Magistrate Judge Elena James on June 1, 2015. Martin v. 

James, Case No. 15-cv-02417-PJH, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2015).

6

 Martin filed the case in 

connection with Judge James’ ruling in Martin v. Wells Fargo, Case No.12-cv-00244-MEJ (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 13, 2012). Martin alleged she was “pursing the answer and completion to allegations of 

evidence tampering, in addition to the intrusion of email addresses and or court allowed document 

retrieval system(s), to which plaintiff is alleging that defendant has consistently altered and 

replaced information to . . .” ECF No. 1. 

The court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because Judge James is 

immune from civil liability for acts performed in her judicial capacity. ECF No. 5 at 2. The court 

also stated: “Had the present action named Wells Fargo as a defendant, the court would have 

issued a prefiling order, but cannot do so in this case as the sole named defendant is Judge James.” 

ECF No. 5 at 6. Martin filed a notice of appeal on June 22, 2015 titled “Facts To Be Considered 

By United States District Court.” ECF No. 8. In her appeal, Martin referenced “the charge of 

 

6 All ECF citations in this section refer to Martin v. James, Case No. 15-cv-02417-PJH, ECF No. 1 

(N.D. Cal. June 1, 2015).

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Impunitive Negligence,” “Involuntary servitude,” and “the Anti Peaon Act.” Id. The Ninth 

Circuit referred the case back to the district court to determine if Martin’s in forma pauperis status 

should continue. ECF No. 11. The court revoked Martin’s in forma pauperis status because the 

appeal was “frivolous and taken in bad faith.” Id. at 2. 

d. Jakubowski

On July 6, 2015, Martin filed a complaint against Judge Susan Jackubowski stating 

“Plaintiff is confused as to the documents allowed to Defendant during proceeding in case No SCS 

131587.” Martin v. Jakubowski, Case No. 15-cv-03119-JSW, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 

2015).

7

 Martin requested “to review audio testimony.” Id. Martin alleged she was “charging the 

claim of a racially biased decision due to demography” and “also charging the claim of Equal 

Protection for or of the information used to decide case # SCS 131587.” Id. Additionally, Martin 

alleged she “has been slandered as a liar.” Id. 

On September 10, 2015 the court denied Martin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ECF No. 7. The court also dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) with leave to 

amend because the facts were unclear and there were not sufficient allegations to state a claim. 

ECF No. 7 at 1–2. 

On September 21, 2015 Martin filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 8. Martin did not 

sign the complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Id. As of October 15, 2015,

the court had not issued an order on Martin’s amended complaint. 

e. Khan

On July 23, 2015, Martin filed a complaint against Rubina Khan and Caminar Group. 

Martin v. Khan et al., Case No. 15-cv-03407-YGR, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (“Case 

5”).8 The court denied Martin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice on July 

30, 2015. ECF No. 6. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed Martin’s complaint without 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Martin failed to state a legally cognizable 

 

7 All ECF citations in this section refer to Martin v. Jakubowski, Case No. 15-cv-03119-JSW, ECF 

No. 1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015).

8 All ECF citations in this section refer to Martin v. Khan et al., Case No. 15-cv-03407-YGR, ECF 

No. 1 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015).

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 6 of 8
7

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

federal claim. Id. at 2. On August 10, 2015, Martin filed a document titled “Plaintiff Asking the 

Court of Consider Facts Poverty and Allow Complaint,” which the court found “largely 

unintelligible.” ECF Nos. 7, 13. Martin filed an amended complaint on August 27, 2015. ECF 

No. 8. On September 3, 2015, the court held that it could not “determine the essential elements of 

any cognizable federal claim” and dismissed the amended complaint. ECF No. 13 at 2. 

CONCLUSION

Given the history of Martin’s interactions with this court, she may qualify as a vexatious 

litigant. Martin has filed at least ten complaints, nine of which were dismissed for failing to state 

any cognizable claim and/or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The remaining complaint 

resulted in a settlement agreement, but even in that case Martin engaged in a course of frivolous 

litigation following execution of the settlement. Many of Martin’s complaints and additional 

materials submitted to the court have been unintelligible or frivolous. She has filed several 

complaints without regard to court rules. 

On the basis of this record, the Court is considering declaring Martin a vexatious litigant 

and ordering that her future filings be screened before docketing to determine whether they are 

similarly frivolous and/or unintelligible. 

Accordingly, the Court sets a hearing for December 10, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., and ORDERS 

MARTIN TO SHOW CAUSE why she should not be designated a vexatious litigant and subject 

to a pre-filing order. Martin may personally attend the hearing. Alternatively, she may participate 

at the hearing by telephone if she provides a number at which the Court may reach her not less 

than twenty-four hours before the hearing. She may also file a brief with the Court, explaining 

why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant, provided that she files the brief by November 

19, 2015. Any such brief should respond only to this Order and her potential designation as a 

vexatious litigant; it should not raise additional issues or address the underlying complaint in this 

action except as necessary to respond to this Order. 

Ms. Martin is advised that she can find helpful information for pro se litigants at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, including the Northern District’s Representing Yourself in 

Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants. The handbook is also available free of charge at 

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 7 of 8
8

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

the Clerk’s Office.

Ms. Martin is also encouraged to seek the assistance of the free Legal Help Center operated 

by the Bar Association of San Francisco. The Legal Help Center has locations at 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, California and at 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, 

Room 470S, Oakland, California. Assistance is provided by appointment only. A litigant may 

schedule an appointment by signing up in the appointment book located on the table outside the 

door of the Center or by calling the Legal Help Center appointment line at 415-782-8982.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03151-JST Document 10 Filed 10/15/15 Page 8 of 8