Opinion ID: 2547165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Court-access restrictions

Text: Unlike some states, Nevada does not have a court rule or statute authorizing a court to declare an individual a vexatious litigant and to limit accordingly that individual's access to the courts. [20] Nonetheless, Nevada's courts are constitutionally authorized to issue all writs proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction. [21] In addition, as discussed above, NRCP 11 permits a district court to impose appropriate deterrent sanctions on a party who violates that rule by signing court documents that are frivolous or presented for an improper purpose. Finally, Nevada courts also possess inherent powers of equity and of control over the exercise of their jurisdiction. [22] We recognize that these authorities bestow upon Nevada courts the power to permanently restrict a litigant's right to access the courts. [23] A court may impose such restrictions either after a party so moves, or, in appropriate circumstances, sua sponte. [24] Nonetheless, because restrictive orders implicate an individual's constitutional right to access the courts, such orders must be narrowly tailored. [25] Further, we note a general reluctance to impose restrictive orders when standard remedies like sanctions are available and adequate to address the abusive litigation. [26] We have not previously addressed what approach courts should take when imposing vexatious litigant restrictive orders. The Ninth Circuit, however, has developed a four-factor analysis to guide courts in balancing the various interests implicated by court-access restrictions. [27] First, the litigant must be provided reasonable notice of and an opportunity to oppose a restrictive order's issuance. This requirement protects the litigant's due process rights. [28] Second, the district court must create an adequate record for review, including a list of all the cases and documents, or an explanation of the reasons, that led it to conclude that a restrictive order was needed to curb repetitive or abusive activities. [29] In regard to this factor, we recognize that the district court's access to documents filed and proceedings taken in other courts is often limited. Moreover, filings that have not been deemed frivolous or vexatious or otherwise resolved remain pending on the merits before the court to which they are assigned. Therefore, a court considering a restrictive order must use caution in reviewing filings in other cases, so as not to interfere with other judges' pending assignments. [30] The judge issuing the restrictive order should rely only on observations obtained from cases to which he or she is assigned, and on actual rulings in other cases. [31] Further, while a restrictive order may be warranted based solely on documents before the court in that particular case, the district court must identify those documents and explain how, by filing them, the litigant abused the court system. [32] Third, the district court must make `substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions.' [33] Thus, the restrictive order cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. [34] The litigant's filings must not only be repetitive or abusive, but also be without an arguable factual or legal basis, or filed with the intent to harass. [35] Finally, the order must be narrowly drawn to address the specific problem encountered. [36] We note that when a litigant's misuse of the legal system is pervasive, a restrictive order that broadly restricts a litigant from filing any new actions without permission from the court might nonetheless be narrowly drawn. However, even though courts may, as a general rule, restrict vexatious litigants' access, constitutional considerations prohibit a complete ban on filings by indigent proper person litigants if the ban prevents the litigant from proceeding in criminal cases and in original civil actions that sufficiently implicate a fundamental right; such orders are impermissible. [37] Since restrictive orders necessarily implicate future filings, which may involve criminal cases or fundamental rights, even broad restrictive orders should set an appropriate standard against which any future filings will be measured. [38] For example, depending on the specific problems encountered, a restrictive order might bar a litigant from filing any new actions involving a specific defendant or a specific claim, or it might bar a litigant from filing any new actions unless the court first determines that the proposed action is not frivolous or brought for an improper purpose and/or implicates a fundamental right. As these guidelines adequately protect a litigant's constitutional rights, provide appropriate guidance to courts issuing vexatious litigant orders, and set forth suitable factors for review of such orders, we adopt the Ninth Circuit's four-part analysis, as modified, for Nevada courts issuing restrictive orders. On review, this court examines restrictive orders under an abuse of discretion standard. [39] We now turn to the restrictive orders at issue in these appeals.