Opinion
CV 21-7590-RSWL CR 93-698-RSWL-1
01-14-2022
CHRISTIAN NADAL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [ 8 ]; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRE-FILING APPROVAL
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Christian Nadal ("Petitioner") brings this Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") [8] requesting that the Court reconsider its previous Order [7] denying Petitioner's Writ of Error Coram Nobis [1] and issue a declaratory judgment regarding whether the firearms at issue in his 1993 criminal case were, in fact, illegal firearms under the law. Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS
FOLLOWS: the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and ORDERS Petitioner to show cause why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This matter arises from an underlying criminal action brought against Petitioner (then-defendant) in 1993. See generally Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8; Order re: Writ of Error Coram Nobis, ECF No. 7. The allegations against Petitioner concerned the manufacture and sale of illegal firearms and their parts. Order re: Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Following a jury trial before this Court, Petitioner was convicted of: (1) conspiracy to manufacture, transfer, and possess machineguns and silencers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) transferring and possessing machineguns in violation of 18. U.S.C. § 992(o)(1); and (3) transferring and possessing unregistered silencers in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)-(e). Id. This Court sentenced Petitioner to 96 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Id.
B. Procedural Background
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that he had been entrapped into selling illegal firearms to undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agents. United States v. Nadal, 64 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit affirmed his convictions, explaining that an acquittal based on entrapment as a matter of law could not be justified. Id. at 1. Petitioner then unsuccessfully sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Nadal v. United States, 516 U.S. 1122 (1996).
On November 18, 1996, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion [152] to vacate his sentence. On March 31, 1997, this Court denied [162] Petitioner's § 2255 motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial. United States v. Nadal, 188 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1999). The U.S. Supreme Court again denied certiorari. Nadal v. United States, 531 U.S. 916 (2000) .
On September 21, 2021, Petitioner filed a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, styled as a Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], before this Court. The Court denied [7] the Writ of Error Coram Nobis on December 15, 2021. On January 7, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration [8] seeking a declaration from this Court as to whether the firearms at issue in his 1993 criminal case were, in fact, illegal firearms under the law.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Discussion
1. Motion for Reconsideration
The governing standards for a motion for reconsideration are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 59(e) and Local Rule 7-18. See State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Drobot, 192 F.Supp.3d 1080, 1116 (CD. Cal. 2016). Local Rule 7-18 provides that:
A motion for reconsideration of an Order on any motion or application may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the Order was entered, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before the Order was entered.CD. Cal. R. 7-18.
Local Rule 7-18 further states that "[n]o motion for reconsideration may in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of, or in opposition to, the original motion" and that "any motion for reconsideration must be filed no later than 14 days after entry of the Order that is the subject of the motion or application." Id.
Here, Petitioner's Motion was filed more than 14 days after entry of the Court's Order denying Petitioner's Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Dismissal is warranted on this basis alone. Additionally, Petitioner's Motion is largely identical to his Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Compare Mot. for Reconsideration, with Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Petitioner's duplicative and repetitive Motion thus fails to meet the requirements under Local Rule 7-18 for a proper motion for reconsideration. To be clear, Petitioner does not state that a material difference in fact or law has occurred or otherwise demonstrate why the Court should revisit its Order denying Petitioner's Writ of Error Coram Nobis. See generally Mot. for Reconsideration. Rather, it appears that Petitioner has merely deleted a few sentences from his Writ of Error Coram Nobis and re-filed the same as a Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
2 . Order to Show Cause
"District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation." Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990)). "Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case." Id. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that "such pre-filing orders should rarely be filed." De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. However, "[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." Id. at 1148.
Given that Petitioner has raised, in several successive habeas petitions, arguments that have been rejected by this Court and others, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why he should not be required to obtain pre-filing approval before filing any future action that challenges any aspect of the underlying criminal proceedings. See L.R. 83-8. Petitioner shall file a written submission on or before February 14, 2022, explaining why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant. Upon receiving any response, the matter will be taken under submission. Petitioner's failure to file a timely response will be deemed consent to an order finding that he is a vexatious litigant.
Ill. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. As noted, on or before February 14, 2022, Petitioner shall file a written submission demonstrating why he should not be required to obtain pre-filing approval before filing any future action that challenges any aspect of the underlying criminal proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.