Opinion
No. C 01-02218 WHA
November 1, 2001
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND REQUIRING PRE-FILING REVIEW FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS
This order DISMISSES plaintiff Michael Pope's complaint for his failure to comply with this Court's order of August 20, 2001, and bars plaintiff from filing further actions in this court without pre-filing review by the undersigned.
Plaintiff filed a complaint initiating this action on June 6, 2001. The complaint was barely comprehensible. The only words on its first page were "Americord," "Non-Receipt of Royalties, Payments," "Lawsuit" and "Songwriter on your album." Elsewhere in the complaint were the name of a song, "I owe my life to Christ," and the allegation "I only received only one payment since Nov. of 1999." The rest of the complaint was unintelligible.
Plaintiff requested to proceed informa pauperis. This request was denied on August 20, 2001. Plaintiff was given until September 28, 2001, to pay the $150.00 filing fee, or this action would be dismissed. At around that time, the Court also looked into whether plaintiff had filed any other actions similar to this one. Upon reviewing the clerk's files, the Court discovered that since December 5, 2000, plaintiff has filed at least 19 actions, including this case, in this court. The 19 actions are as follows:
C 00-04517 PJH Michael Pope, Minister, v. United States Postal Service.
C 01-00410 EDL Michael Pope, Minister, v. Housing Authority of San Francisco.
C 01-00504 MJJ Michael Pope, Minister, v. Foundation of Children with Cancer.
C 01-00521 CRB Michael Pope, Minister, v. Hollywood Stars Music; Hilltop Records; Amerecord Records.
C 01-00525 MMC Michael Pope, Minister, v. Mental Health.
C 01-00526 VRW Michael Pope, Minister, v. Hilltop Records.
C 01-00647 MJJ Michael Pope, Minister, v. Amerecords.
C 01-00656 CRB Michael Pope, Minister, v. American Society of Composors Authors and Publishers.
C 01-00711 SI Michael Pope, Minister, v. ASCAP.
C 01-01136 SBA Michael Pope, Minister, v. United States Post Office.
C 01-01382 PJH Michael Pope, Rev. Minister, v. Library of Congress.
C 01-02216 WHA Michael Pope v. San Francisco Police Department.
C 01-02217 MJJ Michael Pope v. Hilltop Records.
C 01-02218 WHA Michael Pope v. Hollywood Stars Music Production; Columbine Records Corporation.
C 01-02459 MMC Michael Pope v. Amerecord Records.
C 01-02655 CRB Michael Pope v. Stokes; Bartholomew; Evans and Petree, a professional association.
C 01-02785 MJJ Michael Pope v. Capital One Services, Inc.
C 01-02967 MJJ Michael Pope v. San Francisco Police Department.
In each of these cases, plaintiff has sought to proceed informa pauperis. In many, his application to proceed informa pauperis was denied and the complaint dismissed. In at least one, his application to proceed informa pauperis was granted but the complaint was nonetheless dismissed. At least one case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Only one of the cases remains on the docket.
While some of the underlying facts in plaintiffs previous cases have differed, the actions C 01-00504 MJJ; C 01-00525 MMC; C 01-00526 VRW; C 01-00647 MJJ; C 01-01136 SBA; C 01-02216 WHA; C 01-02217 MJJ; and the instant action, C 01-02218 WHA, have primarily sought relief for the same type of alleged injury relating to copyright infringement, contract disputes, and royalty payments to which plaintiff asserts he is entitled. Several of the cases name the same defendants, and are acknowledged on the applications to proceed informa pauperis to raise claims that have been presented in other lawsuits; for example, the instant action raises the same claims as Case No. C 01-00526 VRW, which was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim in February 2001, and it also appears repetitive of Case No. C 01-00504 MJJ which was dismissed in April 2001. As well as being repetitive, the allegations in the handwritten complaints are incoherent and often illegible. Additionally, they fail to provide enough information to determine if a basis for federal jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Vestron, Inc., v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that although an action involves a copyright, "that fact alone does not satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements").
In this case, plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's order of August 20, 2001, which gave him until September 28, 2001, to pay the filing fee. Before dismissing this case, however, the Court must consider whether it should restrict plaintiffs ability to bring further repetitive actions without pre-filing review. Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of vexatious litigants. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the power of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), courts may restrict litigants with abusive and lengthy histories from filing further actions. Ibid. A court may restrict such litigants' future filing of actions or papers provided that it (1) gives the litigant an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered; (2) creates an adequate record for review; (3) makes substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions; and (4) drafts a sufficiently tailored order. Id. at 1145-48.
After the Court reviewed the 19 actions listed above, it issued an order on August 30, 2001, directing plaintiff to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further actions in this court with respect to these defendants and with respect to these or substantially similar claims without pre-filing review. Plaintiff was told to file a written response to that order no later than October 4, 2001. He failed to do so. He also failed to comply with the Court's directive to appear before this Court on November 1, 2001, to respond to the order.
Plaintiff's failure to rebut the overwhelming weight of evidence leaves this Court with no choice but to declare him a vexatious litigant. The Court finds that litigant has filed a number of frivolous and meritless actions with this Court. These actions have abused the judicial process and serve no purpose but to burden the judiciary and harass the opposing parties. Plaintiff continues to bring the same new suits raising the same claims as against the same defendants that have already been decided against him. For example, as discussed above this action is identical to Case No. C 01-00526 VRW, dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim in February 2001.
It is ORDERED that plaintiff may not file, nor the clerk accept for filing, any further complaints from plaintiff that: (1) name any of the above-listed defendants; and (2) make identical or substantially similar claims against them that have previously been dismissed with prejudice, without obtaining prior leave from the Court. If the clerk receives any new complaints from plaintiff in the future, it shall forward those complaints to the undersigned prior to filing them. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit, along with any new complaint he may file, a declaration explaining how that complaint does not state claims already foreclosed by an earlier court order and details the facts that form the basis of his claim(s). This shall be forwarded by the clerk along with the complaint. The undersigned then will determine whether the complaint merely duplicates allegations previously made against any of the aforementioned defendants, in cases dismissed with prejudice. If the Court ascertains that a complaint is duplicative or frivolous, the complaint will not be filed but instead returned to plaintiff. Otherwise, the complaint will be given to the clerk with instructions to file it.
Plaintiffs present complaint is also DISMISSED for failure to comply with this Court's order of August 20, 2001.