Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page1 of 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MELINDA HAAG (SBN 132612) United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN 88143) Chief, Civil Division Victoria R. Carradero (SBN 217885) Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7181 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 Email: victoria.carradero@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States of America

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WANXIA LIAO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C-11-2494 JSW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAS RE-NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND FOR PREFILING SCREENING Date: March 16, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable Jeffrey S. White

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page2 of 19

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 3. 2. III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

RE-NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

RELIEF SOUGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. B. Plaintiffs Lawsuits In California Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Plaintiffs Lawsuits In Federal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. 2. 3. 4. Liao v. Cahill, et al., Case No. C 03-2906-SBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Liao v. Quidachay, et al., Case No. C 05-1888-CW . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Liao v. Ashcroft, et al., Case No. C 08-2776-PJH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Liao v. United States of America, et al., Case No. C 11-2494-JSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT MEETS THE STANDARD OF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Plaintiff Will Have Sufficient Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Plaintiff Has A Pattern Of Filing Numerous Actions Against The Federal Government And Its Employees. . . . . . . . . 11 Plaintiffs Lawsuits And Filings Are Frivolous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page3 of 19

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 IV.

4.

Breadth of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

ii

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page4 of 19

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
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Beachboard v. United States, 727 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 200 F. Sup. 2d 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, Liao v. Ashcroft, et al., Case No. C 08-2776-PJH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 6 Liao v. Cahill, et al., Case No. C 03-2906-SBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,5 Liao v. Quidachay, et al., Case No. C 05-1888-CW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,5 Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 14 O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Shafler v. HSBC Bank USA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400 (N.D. Cal. February 21, 2007) 10, 13 Stone v. Maricopa County, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84030 (D. Ariz. September 29, 2008)13 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118 (9th Cir.1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 U.S. v. Southern California Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Weissman v. Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FEDERAL STATUTES Fed. R. Evid. 201(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10

iii

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page5 of 19

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

RE-NOTICE2 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO PLAINTIFF WANXIA LIAO AND ALL DEFENDANTS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 16, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco, California, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White presiding, the United States of America (USA) will appear3 and move the Court for an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing screening order on any new action brought by her in this Court. This motion is brought on the grounds that Plaintiff Liao has filed and continues to file frivolous pleadings, complaints, and motions, including the complaint in the instant case, which pleadings, complaints, and motions are numerous, abusive, and harassing in violation of the holdings of Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) and DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990). This motion is based on this notice, the ensuing points and authorities, the declaration of Victoria R. Carradero (Carradero Decl.,) and accompanying exhibits, the Request for Judicial Notice, the pleadings on file with the Court, and any such other evidence or argument that the Court may hear. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED Whether Plaintiff should be considered a vexatious litigant due to the repetitive and numerous non-meritorious suits and filings that she has brought in this Court and whether a broad pre-filing screening order is warranted. RELIEF SOUGHT The USA seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to submit any further proposed actions to the Court for prefiling review and approval before Plaintiff is allowed to file such actions with this Court. The USA also seeks an order requiring that, should after prefiling review the Court deems an action appropriate for filing, the Plaintiff pay all court filing and other fees and not be
2

This is the third time since December 2011 that the USA has filed and served this motion, refiling it after each time a judge has recused himself/ herself and the matter has been reassigned. See Docket Entry Nos. 44, 54. Plaintiff has not effected proper service of the summons and complaint or first amended complaint on federal defendants. Carradero Decl., 2. See also Docket Entry No. 20, 63.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW
3

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page6 of 19

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

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION In 1991, while a graduate student at the University of Toronto, Plaintiff Wanxia Liao, a Canadian citizen of Chinese decent, had an academic dispute with a professor. This event has spawned, over the course of the last nearly ten years, at least two state court actions, four federal court actions, and numerous appeals (including to the United States Supreme Court), all of which have been resolved against Plaintiff. The history giving rise to these actions4 is well chronicled in this Courts multiple orders in Liao v. Cahill, et al., Case No. C 03-2906-SBA, Liao v. Quidachay, et al., Case No. C 05-1888-CW, and Liao v. Ashcroft, et al., Case No. C 08-2776PJH. This particular action is Plaintiffs fourth lawsuit in this Court alleging the same elaborate conspiracy to cover up a claimed violation of her self labeled constitutional rights. The alleged conspirators include the USA, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, four of this Courts judges, two court clerk employees, the clerk of the Ninth Circuit, numerous federal government employees and national media organizations. Plaintiff generally alleges that the Canadian, United States, California state and San Francisco County governments, and their employees, have conspired to cover up purported criminal acts, constitutional violations, and frauds each supposedly linked to the fallout of her dispute with one Professor Cahill at the University of Toronto in 1991. In each of the

The USA provides a brief summary of the numerous proceedings in the actions Plaintiff has filed. Because the docket proceedings are extensive, with Plaintiff filing numerous improper motions (including, but not limited to, repeated motions for reconsideration, motions for investigation, motions to stay, and motions to disqualify counsel and the judge), for the Courts convenience, the USA submits the dockets for each of Plaintiffs actions, along with select documents from each case to demonstrate to the Court the duplicative and meritless nature of Plaintiffs abusive filings. The USA requests that the Court take judicial notice of these court records, available on the San Francisco Superior Court website, Pacer and Lexis. Request for Judicial Notice, Carradero Decl., Exs. 1-43. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(d); see also United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.1980) ([A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.); U.S. v. Southern California Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 974 (E.D. Cal. 2004); Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 200 F. Sup. 2d 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page7 of 19

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

lawsuits, Plaintiffs facts generally do not change. Rather, the list of defendants gets longer and longer each time Plaintiff tacks on a judge who rules against her, court personnel whom she claims conspired to dismiss her complaint, a media outlet whom she claims did not post her story, a third party whom she claims unlawfully refused to investigate her human rights case, or a lawyer appears in the action. Although Plaintiff has not effected proper service on any federal defendant in the instant matter, the USA files the instant motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and will soon file a motion to dismiss the complaints. The parties and the Court have been burdened long enough. Plaintiffs lawsuits amount to no more than a substantial waste of time and limited judicial and taxpayer resources.5 The order sought is necessary to stop Plaintiff, or at the very least, temper her abuse of the judicial system. The USAs motion should be granted. II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS A. Plaintiffs Lawsuits In California Superior Court

On May 9, 2002, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court (Case No. 407661) against Professor Cahill and the University of California alleging civil conspiracy and racial discrimination. Carradero Decl., Exs. 1-4 (Docket, Complaint and Amended Complaints). The facts underlying Plaintiffs case are as follows. In 1991, as a masters student at the University of Toronto, Plaintiff had an academic dispute with professor David Waterhouse in the Universitys East Asian Studies Department. Carradero Decl., Ex. 2 (Complaint). Plaintiff submitted a term paper in which she challenged Waterhouses previously published contention that beautiful is a European concept. Id., at 6-7. Waterhouse then allegedly retaliated against her by interfering with her Ph.D application through a series of fraud, such as awarding Plaintiff a B as her final grade while the course was in progress, submitting Plaintiffs grade without having it reviewed by the Department Chair, providing a reference letter for Plaintiffs Ph.D application fraudulently identifying himself as her program supervisor, and objecting to Plaintiffs Ph.D application on an erroneous ground. Id., 8. According to Plaintiff,

Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, has never once appeared in person in this Court. Rather, she abuses the system from her residence in Canada. Docket Nos. 18, 19, 24, 35.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page8 of 19

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

Waterhouses fraud directly caused her application for the Ph.D program to be unsuccessful. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). Id. While not entirely clear from the complaint allegations, James Cahill (Cahill), a professor at UC Berkeley, allegedly became involved in a conspiracy with the Canadian government to cover up Waterhouses fraud and racial prejudice after learning of Plaintiffs complaint to the OHRC. Id., 9-25. In May 1995, the OHRC dismissed Plaintiffs complaint, which led to her arrest and subsequent conviction for uttering a death threat to Waterhouse. Id., at 26-36. Defendants filed a demurrer, which was sustained and the case was dismissed. Carradero Decl., Exs. 1, 5. Plaintiffs appeal was subsequently dismissed. Id., Ex. 6. On March 8, 2004, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court (Case No. 429421), this time against the San Francisco Superior Court and Michael Laurenson (Professor Cahills attorney in the previous superior court action), stylized as a Complaint in Equity to Declare Orders Sustaining Demurrer and Dismissing Action Void for Action No. 407761. Carradero Decl., Exs. 7-9 (Docket, Complaint and Amended Complaint). The Complaint alleged that the Courts order sustaining demurrers to her complaint should be voided because they were obtained by extrinsic fraud and in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court for not being accomplished in the manner prescribed by statute and the Court issued them without subject matter jurisdiction. Id., Ex. 8, Complaint 1. The Complaint also attempted to allege a claim for fraud and misrepresentation against defendants counsel in her prior case. Id. Defendants demurrer was sustained. Carradero Dec., Ex. 12 (Court of Appeal Order, at *2). Plaintiff moved to vacate the order and disqualify San Francisco Superior Court Judge Quidachay and filed a first amended complaint. Exs. 7, 12 (at *2). Defendant moved for an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish security on the ground that she was a vexatious litigant, which was granted.. Exs. 7, 10-11 (Order and Judgment), 12 (at *2-3). Plaintiff moved unsuccessfully for reconsideration and the actions were dismissed Exs. 7, 12 (at *2-3). Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the order granting security and the order denying reconsideration. Exs. 12, 13.

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page9 of 19

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

B.

Plaintiffs Lawsuits In Federal Court 1. Liao v. Cahill, et al., Case No. C 03-2906-SBA

While her first superior court action was pending, on June 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed her first district court action (Case No. 4:03-2906 SBA) against Professor Cahill and the University of California based on the same set of facts - the dispute with Professor Cahill and the conspiracy to cover it up. Carradero Decl., Ex. 14 (Docket). The case was assigned to Judge Armstrong. Plaintiff filed an array of motions in that matter, ranging from appeals of orders dismissing claims (see e.g., Docket No. 32), motions to amend the complaint (Docket Nos. 34, 77), motions to remove counsel (Docket No. 34), and motions for relief (Docket Nos. 55, 77, 90, 108). Id. The Courts Order dismissing Plaintiffs action reflects the duplicative nature of Plaintiffs allegations and claims as those set forth in her superior court actions. Id., Ex. 15 (Order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Rule 56(f) Discovery and Stay of Summary Judgment and Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6), p. 1-2). The Court specifically admonished Plaintiff about her repeated filing of meritless motions seeking relief from the same judgment, and ordered Plaintiff to not file any further documents in the action without leave of court or they would be stricken from the record. Id., at p. 9. Plaintiff subsequently appealed, but failed to pay the filing fees and the appeals were dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id., Exs. 16-18 (Oder denying Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Clerks Filing Fee Payment Notice, Docket for Appeal 04-16009, Docket for Appeal 06-15544). 2. Liao v. Quidachay, et al., Case No. C 05-1888-CW

On May 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a second district court action (Case No. 4:05-1888-CW), this time against numerous San Francisco Superior Court Judges and staff, as well as state appellate court and supreme court justices, in addition to James Cahill and Michael Laurenson. Carradero Decl., Exs. 19, 20 (Docket, Second Amended Complaint). The case was assigned to Judge Wilken. Plaintiff regurgitated the very same allegations and constitutional violations as in her two prior state court actions and her first district court action and added to her conspiracy theory. Id., Ex. 20, 9-19. Plaintiff added allegations that various judges and court personnel conspired to sabotage her case based on the dismissals in her prior actions. Id., 3-8, 22-76.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page10 of 19

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

Plaintiff sought, among other things, declaratory relief that the Judicial Council of California has created an underground room for California judges to freely commit unlawful acts in courts to deprive litigants constitutional rights. Id., 8. Plaintiff filed numerous similar improper motions as in her prior district court action, as well as motions to disqualify the district court judge assigned to hear the matter. Id., Ex. 19 (see e.g., Docket Nos. 28, 33, 34). The Court denied various of Plaintiffs motions, including her motions for a stay and for telephonic appearance, denied Plaintiffs motion for removal of counsel and recusal of the judge, dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint and Second Amended Complaint on the grounds of absolute and quasiimmunity and failure to affect service, and denied her motions for reconsideration. Id., Exs. 2124. In February and June 2007, Plaintiffs appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. Id., Ex. 25-28. On May 27, 2008, Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was also denied. Id., Ex. 29. 3. Liao v. Ashcroft, et al., Case No. C 08-2776-PJH

On June 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed her third district court action (Case No. 4:08-2776 PJH), again based on the same set of facts regarding the dispute with Professor Cahill at the University of Toronto and the alleged failure to investigate her complaints arising out of that dispute. This time, instead of suing Professor Cahill and the University of California as she did in her prior state and federal court actions, she named as defendants former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, persons alleged to be paralegals of the Department of Justice, the Section Chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, various FBI personnel, various San Francisco Police Department personnel, various members of the civil grand jury, the City and County of San Francisco, the Deputy State Attorney General, CNN, You Tube, District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, and lawyers for defendants in her prior action. Carradero Decl., Ex. 30, 31 (Docket and Complaint). The case was originally assigned to Judge Armstrong. After Judge Armstrong issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect proper service on defendants, Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to name Judge Armstrong as a defendant (in addition to a new defendant, the Chairman of the 109th Congress Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations) and the case was reassigned to Judge
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page11 of 19

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

Hamilton. Id., Ex. 30, 32 (Amended Complaint). Plaintiff alleged that her case was a constitutional, civil, and human rights case challenging the racially motivated refusals by United States government (Federal) officials and California state officials to investigate [her] criminal complaints, and the conspiracy by federal justice administrative officials with the US major media to place a secret prior restraint on [her] Internet free speech about [her] human rights case without due process of law in purpose to cover up [her] human rights case against the US. Id., Ex. 31, 1. Plaintiff regurgitated the very same allegations and claims as in her prior cases. Id., 26-34. Plaintiff added allegations that Judge Wilken and Judge Armstrong violated Plaintiffs due process rights when Judge Wilken refused to recuse herself and by Judge Armstrongs handling of her case in favor of Cahill. Ex. 32, 80-88. Plaintiff also alleged that the media defendants joined the oppression by government based on her alleged inability to post on CNN and You Tube message boards about her human rights case. Id., 93-103. Plaintiff also alleged that the remaining federal and county defendants unlawfully refused to investigate or respond to her complaints to look into the allegations that she raised in her lawsuits, including an alleged threatening internet posting from someone who was undoubtedly speaking for the US and Canadian governments and did so as a knowledgeable insider of the governments. Id., 37-79, 104-111. Finally, plaintiff alleged that the attorney defendants (Kay Yu from the state Attorney Generals office and Gordon and Reese) committed wrongs by filing demurrers and declarations in her prior court actions. Id., 89-92. Plaintiff failed to effect proper service of that action and, as a result, her case was dismissed as to all but four defendants in the case (CNN, Kay Yu, Judge Armstrong, and Christopher Smith). Carradero Dec., Exs. 33, 34 (Orders re Service and dismissal). In the Order dated March 11, 2009, the Court expressly warned Plaintiff that as to the latter three defendants, that even if Plaintiff were to properly effect service, they would likely be found immune from suit. Id., Ex. 34, at *22. Plaintiff also filed numerous similar improper motions as in her prior district court actions, including motions to stay, a motion for investigation of changes in the docket, motions for relief, and a motion to recuse the judge, all of which were denied. Exs.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page12 of 19

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

30, 36. The Court granted the media defendants motion to dismiss, as well as the remaining federal defendants motions to dismiss on the grounds that Judge Armstrong and U.S. House of Representative Smith are immune from suit. Exs. 35, 37, 38. On September 30, 2009, Plaintiffs appeals were dismissed for failure to pay the docketing fees. Ex. 39, 40 (Docket, Order). 4. Liao v. United States of America, et al., Case No. C 11-2494-JSW

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed the fourth and instant action in this Court, this time suing various federal defendants (the USA, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI agent Stephanie Douglas, former U.S. Attorney Joseph Russioniello (identified as U.S. Attorney for California), the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, the Honorable Phyllis Hamilton, district court staff JLM (identified as clerk to Judge Armstrong; known as Jessie Mosley), Financial Technician Quelita Bourgeois, and Clerk of the Ninth Circuit, Molly Dwyer); media defendants CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Topix.com; and Assistant State Attorney General Kay Yu. Carradero Decl., Exs., 41, 42 (Docket and Complaint). Plaintiff alleges the very same accusations as in her prior cases - a conspiracy between various governments, government employees, lawyers, and the media to violate her constitutional rights in dismissing her prior lawsuits and failing to investigate her claimed human rights cases and the same claims for purported constitutional violations and fraud. Exs. 42 (Complaint). Plaintiff seeks to use this case to challenge orders in her prior district court action, Case No. 08-2776 PJH, orders which Plaintiff appealed and subsequently abandoned. Id., (Complaint 1, 5-8, 35-91); Ex. 40 (order dismissing appeal for failure to prosecute). On November 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding District Court Judge William Alsup and Assistant U.S. Attorney Victoria Carradero as defendants based on allegations that the newly named defendants started to conspire to sabotage [her] case through ways of fraud because the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to personally appear for the Case Management Conference, as all parties are required to, and because of her complaints about e-filing. Id., Ex. 43 (Amended Complaint, 84-97). Plaintiff also added the U.S. Department of State and Voice of America as defendants claiming that each joined the media conspiracy and refused to post her comments on their websites in violation of her purported right to free
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page13 of 19

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

speech. Id. ( 8, 109-118, 136). Plaintiff also appears to attempt to allege a new cause of action purporting to challenge the constitutionality of the Immigration and Nationality Act based upon a claimed inability to enter the United States because she is a foreign national with a criminal record. Id., Ex. 43 (FAC, 11, 139-40). On December 9, 2012, the USA filed and served a motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Docket No. 44. On December 12, 2011, Judge Alsup recused himself and the matter was reassigned to Judge Wilken, who Plaintiff then demanded recuse herself. Docket Nos. 4546, 51. On December 20, 2011, the USA refiled and reserved its motion. Docket No. 54. On December 23, 2011, Judge Wilken denied Plaintiffs request for recusal and issued a briefing schedule on the defendants pending motions to be decided on the papers. Docket No. 56. The Courts order noted that Plaintiff had not complied with Rule 4, and ordered her to serve the federal defendants and file proof of service within 30 days or her claims would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. On December 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to vacate the order, claiming that she was never served with the USAs motion to declare her a vexatious litigant (which was incorrect as she had been served with it twice) and needed more time to respond, and repeating her demand for Judge Wilken to recuse herself. Docket No. 57. That motion, while granted on January 6, 2012, specifically provided that Plaintiff was to file and serve her opposition to each of the defendants pending motions within 21 days of the date of the order. Docket No. 59. On January 9, 2012, this matter was reassigned to Judge White. As of this filing, Plaintiff has not filed or served her opposition to any of the Defendants motions. See Docket. Further, as of this filing, Plaintiff has not effected proper service on any federal defendant. Docket No. 63, Carradero Decl., 2. III. PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT MEETS THE STANDARD OF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT A. Legal Standard

The Ninth Circuit has long recognized that [t]here is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate circumstances. De Long v. Hennessey, 912
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page14 of 19

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

F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), district courts have 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 to Weissman v. Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999)). In De Long, the Ninth Circuit established a four factor analysis to be applied when determining the propriety of a pre-filing order. 912 F.2d at 1148. Here, those factors weigh in favor of a pre-filing order against Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has had plenty of notice and opportunity to respond appropriately to this motion. Second, there is a substantial record of Plaintiffs abuse of the judicial system in the Northern District of California and in the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, Plaintiff has filed four separate actions with this Court - with frivolous appeals in each one - all arising from the same set of operative facts. Third, Plaintiffs claims patently lack merit. Finally, because Plaintiff has demonstrated that she is unable to police herself, the Court should require a pre-filing review for all of Plaintiffs future filings with this Court. The parties and the Court have spent substantial time and money on Plaintiffs meritless claims. Plaintiff, as a citizen and resident of Canada, does not have a right to access this court and abuse the judicial system. Further, Plaintiff has never once made a personal appearance in any of her numerous lawsuits, but has continued to file meritless actions and motions ad nauseum when she receives an unfavorable ruling in her case. Plaintiffs conduct far surpasses attempting the proverbial second bite at the apple, and represents - at best - a flagrant violation of the federal rules and disrespect for the Courts orders. As such, the Court should use its inherent power to enter a pre-filing review order due to the numerous and meritless claims and motions Plaintiff has filed in her past and present actions. See All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a); Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057; Shafler v. HSBC Bank USA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400 (N.D. Cal. February 21, 2007) (declaring plaintiff vexatious litigant after filing duplicative state and federal court actions and abusive pleadings).

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

10

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page15 of 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.

Plaintiff Will Have Sufficient Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard

Pursuant to De Long, a pre-filing order should not be entered unless the plaintiff has notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the issue. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. This first prong is satisfied when a proper motion is filed by the defendants ... and [plaintiff] ha[s] the opportunity to oppose the motion, both in writing and at a hearing. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. The USA filed and served the instant motion back on December 9, 2011 and re-filed and reserved it again on December 20, 2011 after Judge Alsup recused himself. This is the third time that the USA has filed and served this motion. Thus, Plaintiff has had sufficient time to respond. 2. Plaintiff Has A Pattern Of Filing Numerous Actions Against The Federal Government And Its Employees.

The second factor of the De Long analysis is whether the district court created an 11 adequate record for review. An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the 12 cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was 13 needed. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. With respect to this factor the Ninth Circuit is concerned 14 with establishing a pattern of behavior by the plaintiff to show that the litigation is so 15 voluminous as to be vexatious. Id.; Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059. 16 Here, the record demonstrates the number of repetitive and meritless lawsuits and 17 motions that plaintiff has filed in this Court and others, as well as several abandoned appeals. 18 Carradero Decl., Exs. 1-43. Plaintiff has named as federal defendants no less than three Attorney 19 Generals, numerous FBI and Department of Justice personnel (including the former FBI director, 20 various agents, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, and various 21 paralegals), four district court judges, three court personnel (including the Clerk of the Ninth 22 Circuit), an AUSA, and various federal agencies (including, the Department of Justice and 23 Department of State), and the United States of America. Furthermore, the voluminous record 24 confirms Plaintiffs stubborn insistence on filing similar claims and motions, disregarding the 25 local and federal rules, as well as the Courts orders. Id. Indeed, the record provides an 26 adequate basis for determining that Plaintiffs filing behavior warrants - at a minimum - a 27 28
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

11

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page16 of 19

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

prefiling review order. Id. 3. Plaintiffs Lawsuits And Filings Are Frivolous.

The third factor set forth in De Long gets to the heart of the vexatious litigant analysis, inquiring as to the frivolous nature of the litigant's actions. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. Before a district court issues a pre-filing injunction against a pro se litigant, it is incumbent on the court to make substantive findings as to the frivolous ... nature of the litigants actions. Id. That determination is made by looking at both the number and content of the filings. Id. (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, Plaintiff has an established history of filing frivolous lawsuits and other abusive filings in this Court and others. Carradero Decl., Exs. 1-43. Since 2003, plaintiff has filed four separate lawsuits in this Court (and of those has taken four appeals to the Ninth Circuit and one petition to the United States Supreme Court), all arising from the same set of operative facts. Id. Indeed, her very first district court action was filed only after she received several negative rulings in her identical state court action. Id., Exs. 1-3, 14, 15. Her successive complaints add judges and other court personnel from her previous actions whose outcomes she was displeased with, as well as other federal defendants (such as former Attorney Generals, numerous FBI and Department of Justice personnel, and agencies) whom she simply renames after dismissal of her prior actions. Id., Exs. 14, 20, 31, 32, 42, 43. The frivolous nature of Plaintiffs filings is further evidenced by, among other things, her repeated assertion that she is entitled to rights under this countrys constitution, when she does not even live within this countrys borders and has apparently never stepped foot in this country, even to pursue her frivolous claims. Moreover, while Plaintiff claims ad nauseum that she has a due process right to access this countrys judicial system - a right that she does not have as a matter of law (see the USAs motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaints) - she definitively refuses to abide by any of the Courts rules or orders. Plaintiffs complaints are later abandoned on appeal, only for her to refile a new district court action in an improper attempt to revive her claims and avoid the legal and binding effect of the Courts orders. Id., Exs. 14, 16-18, 20, 25-29, 40, 42, 43.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

12

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page17 of 19

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

As the dockets and Courts orders reflect, each of the orders were issued only after great time and expenditure by the parties and the Court in responding to Plaintiffs numerous baseless motions and after repeated opportunities for Plaintiff to be heard, even on non-sensical matters and on the same matters. Id., Exs. 14-39. The complaints themselves are repetitive, incoherent and meritless alleging a grand conspiracy between various governments, the media, and any lawyer, judge or court personnel who has any involvement in Plaintiffs lawsuits. Id., Exs. 1-43. The only noticeable difference in the complaints are the growing list of defendants who are allegedly conspiring against plaintiff with each adverse ruling. Id., Exs., 8, 9, 20, 31, 32, 42, 43. Plaintiffs meritless complaints and motions have wasted a great deal of the Courts and the parties resources attempting to re-litigate claims that the Court has already found cannot be supported by the facts or the law. See Moy, 906 F.2d at 470. This Court has exhibited great patience with Plaintiff, patience which Plaintiff has taken advantage of with her successive meritless filings. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to file claims over and over again or to abuse the judicial forum to make unfounded allegations against multiple individuals, judges, court personnel, and lawyers involved in her cases, past or present, or harass the parties and the Court with meritless motions. Shafler, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400 at *20 (N.D. Cal. February 21, 2007). The Court in Stone v. Maricopa County, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84030 at *24 (D. Ariz. September 29, 2008), granting defendants motion to declare plaintiffs vexatious litigant, said it well: [T]he Stones have a long history of filing abusive and harassing lawsuits against these defendants. The suits have ended with judgments against Plaintiffs on the merits, and multiple courts have explained to Plaintiffs why principals of claim and issue preclusion and judicial immunity prevent any further litigation. Yet, the Stones only respond to these courtroom defeats with more lawsuits. When, in turn, the next lawsuit has been thrown out of court, Plaintiffs file suit again hoping that the newest lawsuit will finally bring relief that the others have denied. This is a cycle of litigation that must come to an end. Similarly, Plaintiffs filings are not only frivolous, but they reflect a pattern of abuse and harassment. All of the current defendants had no involvement in Plaintiffs underlying dispute with Professor Cahill. Yet, Plaintiff continues to harass the government with her repeated frivolous filings that are unnecessarily wasting the resources of the defendants, the U.S.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

13

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page18 of 19

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

Attorneys Office, and the Court. De Long, 912 F2d at 1148 (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.). Consequently, the Court should issue an injunction prohibiting any other filings from Plaintiff without first being reviewed and approved by the Court. 4. Breadth of Order

The fourth and final factor in the De Long analysis is that the prefiling order be sufficiently tailored to the vexatious litigant's wrongful behavior. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148; see also Molski, 500 F.3d at 1060-1061. The record proves that Plaintiff cannot police herself. The repetitive and frivolous nature of the complaints and other filings cause an undue waste of judicial time and resources, at everyones expense but Plaintiffs. As such, the prefiling review order should require that the Court not accept for filing any further actions from Plaintiff until such documents have been subjected to a pre-filing review by a judge of this Court and should further require that Plaintiff pay all required fees and not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. See Moy, 906 F.2d at 471 (forbidding pro se plaintiff from filing further complaints without prior approval of district court because complaints all arose from the same set of operative facts); see also, e.g.,O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990)(requiring pro se inmate deemed vexatious litigant to show good cause before being permitted to file future actions); De Long, 912 F.2d at 1146-47 (prohibiting filings of pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis without leave of the district court). Without the order it is highly probable that Plaintiff will continue to bring substantially similar meritless lawsuits and motions, only adding to her list of defendants. A review of each of her past actions demonstrates this substantial likelihood. Carradero Decl., Ex. 1-43. Accordingly, the Court should impose a pre-filing screening order. Such an order should require that, prior to the Court permitting any filing, Plaintiff must first make an application to the Honorable Jeffrey S. White (or another judge designated by the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California) for review. The USA proposes that the
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

14

Case3:11-cv-02494-JSW Document72 Filed02/06/12 Page19 of 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

application be required to contain a copy of the proposed filing, along with evidence that supports the allegations in the proposed filing and the propriety of the proposed filing. A copy of the application and proposed filing shall be sent by overnight mail to all defendants named in Plaintiffs proposed action. The defendants will be given 30 days from the date of service to respond to the application. Should Judge White wish further input, the Office of the United States Attorney should be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. In reviewing any future proposed actions, the Court can determine if they are unrelated to the numerous meritless complaints that have been adjudicated, including whether the new action raises any issues that could have been raised in any of the previous actions. If unrelated, and if they state colorable claims, they can be allowed. The order would, however, inhibit Plaintiffs ability to continue to abuse the legal system and will save the defendants, related individuals and entities, the general public, and the Court from the time, annoyance, and expense of responding to Plaintiffs continued frivolous claims and filings. A less restrictive order would not achieve this result. In sum, [t]he unescapable conclusion is that [Plaintiff Liao] is engaged . . . in recreational litigation, misusing precious and limited resources better spent on meritorious claims of his fellow citizens to whom those resources belong. Beachboard v. United States, 727 F.2d 1092, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 1984). IV. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, the United States of America requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an order requiring prefiling review of any future actions presented by Plaintiff for filing in this court (with or without attorney representation) and, should any future action be appropriate for filing, to require Plaintiff to pay all filing fees and not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. DATED: February 6, 2012 Respectfully submitted, MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney ________/s/________________ Victoria R. Carradero Assistant United States Attorney
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION C-11-2494 JSW

25 26 27 28

15