Opinion
CASE NO. C19-0822JLR
07-03-2019
MADIHA MINER, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SECTION 8, Defendant.
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS
Before the court are Plaintiff Madiha Miner's motions (1) for the entry of judgment in the amount of $70 million (Mot. 1 (Dkt. # 17));(2) for the entry of default judgment (Mot. 2 (Dkt. # 18); and (3) to remove her cases to the United States Supreme Court (Mot. 3 (Dkt. # 19)). As discussed below, the court STRIKES the motions and warns Ms. Miner that, if she fails to adhere to this order, the court will consider the entry of a vexatious litigant order against her. //
On June 28, 2019, the court dismissed Ms, Miner's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and struck her pending motions. (6/28/19 Order (Dkt. # 16).) Nevertheless, the court granted Ms. Miner leave until July 11, 2019, to file an amended complaint that meets the pleading requirements of federal court. (See id. at 6.) The court will not consider any motions filed by Ms. Miner until she timely files an amended complaint that satisfies the court's June 28, 2019, order. Accordingly, the court STRIKES Ms. Miner's motions.
In addition, Ms. Miner has several other cases presently pending in the Western District of Washington. (See Case Nos. C19-0821JLR, C19-0846JLR, C19-0847JLR, C19-0848JLR, C19-0849JLR.) In each of these cases, Ms. Miner has filed numerous frivolous motions even though the court has either dismissed her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or remanded her action to state court. (See id.) If Ms. Miner continues to file such motions in her cases, the court will consider entering a vexatious litigant order against her, which will place litigation restrictions upon her within the Western District of Washington. The All Writs Acts, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Although such orders should be rare, "[f]lagrant 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." De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). //
In sum, the court STRIKES Ms. Miner's motions (Dkt. ## 17, 18, 19), and will consider entering a vexatious litigant order against her if she files any more motions in this matter prior to filing an amended complaint that complies with the court's June 28, 2019, order. (See 6/18/19 Order at 6.)
Dated this 3rd day of July, 2019.
/s/_________
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge