Opinion
EDCV 02-691-OMP (SGL).
May 29, 2003.
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
This court has dismissed with prejudice the civil rights and racketeering action brought by pro se plaintiff Janet I. Fischer. Several defendants move for sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing why she should not be treated as a vexatious litigant or sanctioned for filing frivolous papers.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that this court should treat plaintiff as a vexatious litigant. See Local Rule 83-8. Such an order may require that plaintiff post security for costs, or direct that plaintiff obtain prior written authorization from a judge or magistrate-judge before the Clerk of the Court will accept any additional filings. Defendants also seek sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, contending that plaintiff's action was frivolous and intended to harass defendants.
I. Local Rule 83-8
This court's Local Rule 83-8.1 provides:
It is the policy of the Court to discourage vexatious litigation and to provide persons who are subjected to vexatious litigation with security against the costs of defending against such litigation and appropriate orders to control such litigation. It is the intent of this rule to augment the inherent power of the Court to control vexatious litigation and nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the Court's inherent power in that regard.
Local Rule 83-8.2 provides:
On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be heard, the Court may, at any time, order a party to give security in such amount as the Court determines to be appropriate to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions or other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious litigant, and may make such other orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious litigant. Such orders may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from the litigant without payment of normal filing fees and/or without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued upon such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the judge may require.
In an order under this Local Rule, the court must find that "the litigant to whom the order is issued has abused the Court's process and is likely to continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken." LR. 83-8.3.
II. Sanctions Under Court's Inherent Power
Courts may issue sanctions under their inherent power. "[T]he inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which sanction the same conduct." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991).
A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees. Furthermore, when there is bad-faith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than the inherent power. But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither the statute nor the Rules are up to the task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power.Id. at 50 (citations omitted). The district court has inherent power to issue restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with long histories of abusive litigation. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990).
III. Sanctions under Rule 11
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in part:
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal or existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack or information or belief. . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). "[A] district court may impose Rule 11 sanctions if a paper filed with the court is for an improper purpose, or if it is frivolous." G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003). The court applies an objective standard to determine whether sanctions are warranted under Rule 11. Id. (citingTownsend v. Holman Consulting, 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing by July 1, 2003, why she should not be subject to a vexatious litigant order, or sanctioned for bringing and maintaining an action in violation of Rule 11. Defendants may file response briefs by July 14, 2003, and plaintiff may file a reply brief by July 21, 2003. The court will then take the issue under advisement without hearing. Defendants are to file their bills of costs separately.