Opinion
2:21-cv-02159-ART
09-26-2022
AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al, Respondents.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 14, 2017, the Court declared Plaintiff Afshin Bahrampour a vexatious litigant. See Bahrampour v. United States, Case No. 2:16-cv-00985-GMN-VCF, ECF No. 56. (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2017). In so doing, the Court ordered that Mr. Bahrampour must obtain the Court's leave before filing any complaint, petition, or other document in this Court. See id. at 3. In that order, the Court also explained how Mr. Bahrampour must request the Court's leave:
“[I]f Plaintiff intends to file any papers with the Court, he must first seek leave of the Chief District Judge by filing an application bearing the caption “Application Seeking Leave to File.” The application must be supported by a declaration of Plaintiff stating: (1) that the matters asserted in the new complaint or papers have never been raised and disposed of on the merits by any court; (2) that the claim or claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith; and (3) that he has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and such investigation supports the claim or claims. It is further ordered that Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Order to any application.”Id. at 3-4. The Court will refer to these requirements as the Vexatious Litigant Requirements. On December 3, 2021, Bahrampour filed an “Application seeking leave to file” this action and attached the Court's 2017 order declaring him a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 1). On December 8, 2021, Chief Judge Miranda Du directed Bahrampour to supplement his Application. (ECF No. 2). On December 29, 2021, Bahrampour did so. (ECF No. 3).
In contravention of the Vexatious Litigant Requirements, however, Bahrampour articulates many of the same arguments as in his previous case Bahrampour v. United States of America, Case No. 2:16-cv-00985-GMN-VCF. There, as here, Bahrampour articulates frivolous claims about the United States Government's use of electromagnetic field (EMF) technology to control its citizens. Bahrampour's attachment of additional documents relating to these theories to his Application in this action does not satisfy the first Vexatious Litigant Requirement, namely that “the matters asserted in the new complaint or papers have never been raised and disposed of on the merits by any court.”
The Court will therefore deny Mr. Bahrampour's application assigned the above-captioned case number. For administrative purposes, the Court will dismiss this action and direct its closure.
It is therefore ordered that this action be dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.