Court Opinion

ID: 9568199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:01:22.191755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:27.122658
License: Public Domain

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge,
with whom Judges REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and PAEZ join, dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc:
I agree with Judge Berzon that neither the district court nor our panel had an adequate basis for finding that Molski “plainly lied” about his injuries, or that his *1221“claims of injury ... were patently without merit.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.2007); see Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F.Supp.2d 860, 867 (C.D.Cal. 2004). But I do so on an additional ground: The district court had no power to make such findings, nor a record to base them on, because it never held an evidentiary hearing.
Oh, sure, the docket indicates (somewhat misleadingly) that a “hearing” was held on the vexatious litigant motion, but it plainly was not an evidentiary hearing. What happened instead is this: The judge spent the first half of the hearing berating Molski and his lawyers, in pretty much the same terms as his subsequent order— which suggests that his views were cast in cement by the time of the “hearing.” Compare Excerpts of Record (ER) 1094 (“After examining plaintiffs extensive collection of lawsuits....”), and ER 1097 (“The Court simply does not believe that Molski suffered 13 identical injuries generally to the same part of his body, in the course of performing the same activity, over a five-day period.”), with Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F.Supp.2d at 864 (“After examining Plaintiffs extensive collection of law suits.... ”), and id. at 865 (“The Court simply does not believe that Molski suffered 13 nearly identical injuries, generally to the same part of his body, in the course of performing the same activity, over a five-day period.”). After the judge was done, Molski’s counsel was allowed to address the court, ER 1102-06, but no witnesses testified, no evidence was presented, there was no cross-examination and there were no evidentiary rulings-in short, there was no trial. Molski, whose veracity the district court impugned, was not even present.
How then did the judge manage to make factual findings, and how does this panel affirm those findings on appeal? It’s bad enough that the panel relies on its own armchair wisdom about plaintiffs supposed ability to avoid repetitive injuries, Evergreen Dynasty, 500 F.3d at 1059, rather than looking to whether the record supports the findings of the district court. Worse still is that there is no record the panel could consult if it were of a mind to do so. There is no statement at all from Molski himself, as the complaint is not verified. The panel does not find the absence of an evidentiary record remarkable, perhaps laboring under the mistaken impression that there must be an evidentiary record somewhere under all that paper. Still and all, those of us unfamiliar with the alchemy of making findings based on no evidence — -and affirming them based on no record — would dearly love to know why the absence of an evidentiary record is not an insuperable obstacle to affirming a district court’s factual finding.
The bottom line is this: The district court made, and the panel affirms, a finding that Molski is a liar and a bit of a thief, without any evidence at all. The district court and the panel also manage to find that plaintiff just couldn’t have suffered the injuries he alleges, without the benefit of an expert or any other proof. But does the district court have authority to make findings that severely curtail access to the federal court, not only for plaintiff but also for his lawyers and their other clients (present and future), without swearing in a single witness? Without giving notice and an opportunity to present evidence? Without cross-examination? Without any of the other rudiments of due process? Isn’t Molski at least entitled to get on the stand, look the judge in the eye and tell his story?
Fortunately, there’s a cure. The lawyers and judges of the Central District don’t have to put up with this kind of tyranny by one judge acting entirely on his *1222own. A member of a multi-judge court should not be able to single-handedly cut off one party or law firm’s access to all the other judges of the court. The Central District judges can and should adopt a local rule or general order that any judge wishing to bar a litigant or a law firm from accessing the court must obtain the concurrence of a committee of his colleagues. Enforcement of the order, too, should not be entrusted to the judge who entered it, as he may take an unduly broad view as to its scope. Far wiser, and fairer, to have other judges, drawn at random, enforce the order in future cases.
By adopting such measures, the court would ensure that draconian orders such as this one will not be the handiwork of a single judge, subject only to cursory supervision by the court of appeals, but a shared responsibility of the court’s judges, as such orders should be. And the new local rule or general order should be applied retroactively to Molski’s case.
Like Judge Berzon, I’m very sorry that such an order was ever entered, and on such a non-existent record. I’m even sorrier that our panel has seen fit to affirm it, and that our full court has chosen to look the other way. But ultimately, it’s up to the judges of the Central District to ensure that due process is upheld and that an injustice is avoided. I have every confidence that they will be equal to the task.