It takes a special degree of . . . shall we say, perseverence . . . to be designated a vexatious litigant. Multiple meritless lawsuits by a pro se litigant are usually required before that litigant earns a formal “vexatious” designation that requires him to get approval from the court to file any further actions.
So, how does a truly ambitious litigant propel himself above his vexatious brethren? By carrying that same spirit to complaints of judicial misconduct, as in In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, case no. 08-10949 (Dec. 22, 2009). The Judicial Council panel refuses to overturn an order from Chief Judge Kozinski dismissing two judicial misconduct complaints against four district judges, including a complaint against the judge who designated the complainant a vexatious litigant. The conclusion of Judge Kozinski’s original order of dismissal provides the better synopsis:
Complainant has filed numerous misconduct complaints over the past fifteen years. Several previous complaints have been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were conclusory and related to the merits of an underlying decision. Complainant has also used abusive language in the current and past complaints. In my order dismissing his last misconduct complaint, I directed complainant’s attention to Misconduct Rule 1(g), which provides that a “complainant who files vexatious, repetitive, harassing, or frivolous complaints, or otherwise abuses the complaint procedure,” may be restricted from filing further complaints. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 07-89137 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008).
Complainant has now filed two more frivolous misconduct complaints against four judges, in addition to at least twelve other misconduct complaints over the past fifteen years. Complainant is therefore ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complainant has thirty days from the filing of this order to file a response, which will be transmitted to the Judicial Council for its consideration.
Naturally, the complainant failed to comply with the order to show cause, and thus the panel not only declined to overturn the dismissal, but imposed a pre-filing order.
I am not an attorney nor a employee within the vast and fast growing employment sector of California, the justice system. I’m 50, disabled, married to a disabled man 25 years, and live on a low fixed income. My in pro per status and experiences began in 1994: husband was wrongfully arrested in a DUI wherein his urine sample was destroyed & the police report was altered. Thus, the alleged refusal and automatic license suspension without his immediate knowledge cost him a simple DMV hearing request within 10 days and his profession of truck driving which paid the mortgage of our new home. He pled not guilty for almost two years. Meanwhile, I implored DMV to allow him a hearing; they did 6 months after the arrest. Without an attorney, we proved our case and the suspension was set aside. The jury trial took 2 years, and involved 5 police departments’ citations stemming from the first arrest. We did serious research and took a lot of uncomplimentary remarks from the sheriff deputies, clerks, DA’s, judges, public defenders, local lawyers and our friends. He won the five cases in the jury trial on acquittal and regained his driving privileges. But we lost our new home through foreclosure by then and gained many more new cases living in a transient society trying to regain a foothold in stability. Together we had many hearings from the local superior courts, to administrative hearings at EDD, Social Security Adjudication and aside from that first jury trial we’ve been in pro per, even in appealing for a sentencing reduction. We are the defense, the defendant(s) and the audience. This litigant’s passion and enthusiasm is admirable and necessary for in pro per status but it should have been harnassed and focused into the rules of court in order to prevail while up against the state of California and all its vast resources. In a nutshell, trial courts demand knowledge of fact, completely and concise and have no allowance for emotional words, gestures or extraneous details in any in pro per case. It is the first step toward bringing contempt of court on one’s self and if continued, the humiliating tag of ‘frivilous, repetitive or harrassment’ to add to the burden backpack. I feel pleased to know my husband’s in pro per cases never led to such disciplines and have concluded in our favor. But many people underestimate the complexity of court rules and administrative laws when representing their case and judges do have less patience for it. Hopefully, legal aid agencies funded by federal block grants to give those less fortunate financially with real legal help and representation will begin doing it and stop abusing the funds that all taxpayers give. Too bad the litigant discussed did not file an order to show cause: perserverance before personality. His ommission proved their accusations as true.