United States District Court, D. Nevada
BYRON A. DEAL-WATKINS, Plaintiff,
LT. HANS WALTERS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (#109). It is unopposed. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion should be granted.
A district court has the "inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants." Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). Because a pre-filing order implicates a litigant's right of access to the courts, the court should enter such an extreme remedy "only after a cautious review of the pertinent circumstances." Id. Prior to entering a pre-filing order, the court must give the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)).
The court must set forth an adequate record for review and make "substantive findings about the frivolous or harassing nature of the plaintiff's litigation." Id. "An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.'" Id. at 1059 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147). To determine whether the litigant's conduct is frivolous or harassing, the court evaluates "both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant's claims." Id. (quotation omitted). Finally, a pre-filing order "must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered." Id. (quotation omitted). A pre-filing order is overbroad if it prevents the litigant from filing any suit in the court, or applies to a suit against anyone when the record showed the plaintiff was litigious with respect to only one group of defendants. Id. at 1061. Whether to enter a pre-filing order against a vexatious litigant lies within the court's discretion. Id. at 1056.
Byron A. Deal-Watkins commenced this action against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department on October 2, 2013. Deal-Watkins alleged violations of his civil rights. Because the Complaint named various Officers in their official capacities, the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted Deal-Watkins leave to amend his complaint. ( See Doc. # 19.)
Deal-Watkins failed to amend and plead sufficient factual matter, as Rule 8 requires. Instead, he abandoned his section 1983 claims and asserted fifty-five "Crimes committed by the Wrongdoers." ( See Doc. #25, 3-8.) Deal-Watkins also used the amended complaint to express his personal philosophy regarding government and law, increasing the number of pages in his Complaint from nine to thirty-four pages.
Numerous frivolous affidavits, motions, and other documents followed. Each advanced his personal philosophy, not his legal claim. Even after Deal-Wakins' amended complaint was dismissed and the deadline to file a second amended complaint had elapsed, he nonetheless continued to file frivolous affidavits, motions, and other documents.
Throughout the course of litigation, he filed the following thirty-five frivolous documents and requests for relief:
Affidavit of Bryon A; [Deal-Watkins] (Doc. #24);
Take Judicial Notice Rule Two Zero One; Constitutional Criminal Complaint; Opposition against Wrongdoers' Motion to Dismiss Complaint; Fraud within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and its agents; Willful Failure to Disclose Proper Identification of Entities; Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violation; Amendment; Affirmation in the Nature of an Affidavit (Doc. #27);
Affidavit of Bryon A; [Deal-Watkins] re Amended Complaint (Doc. #28);
Notice and Demand; Rescission of Signatures of Suretyship (Doc. #35);
Objection to Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling ...