1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 5 Ronald J. Allison, Case No. 2:22-cv-01114-CDS-EJY

6 Plaintiff,

7 v. Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious

Litigant and Imposing a Pre-filing 8 United States Courts Clerks Office, Injunction

9 Defendants.

10 11 On August 3, 2022, I dismissed with prejudice the claims brought by pro se Plaintiff 12 Ronald J. Allison (ECF No. 1) based on Allison’s attempt to sue this District’s Clerks Office, 13 which is generally immune from suit. ECF No. 3. At that time, I ordered Allison to show cause as 14 to why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant under the All Writs Act, § 28 U.S.C. 15 1651(a). Id. I gave Allison the deadline of August 19, 2022 to respond to the show cause order. Id. 16 He has neither shown cause nor responded to my order. Having thoroughly reviewed the 17 circumstances of this case, and some of the 123 others Allison has filed in this district, I find that 18 Allison has abused the judicial process in a fashion that wastes substantial resources and 19 prevents this Court from addressing the legitimate concerns of other litigants. Allison’s 20 persistent and unrelenting conduct, despite numerous admonitions and instructions, warrants 21 the extreme remedy of a pre-filing order prohibiting him from filing any further lawsuits in this 22 District without prior court approval. 23 24 1 I. Legal Standard 2 Federal district courts enjoy inherent authority to issue writs – including pre-filing 3 orders – to prevent vexatious litigants from filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the judicial 4 process. Moy v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing

(a)). Pre-filing orders are an extreme 6 remedy and should be granted only “after a cautious review of the pertinent circumstances.” 7 Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. Before entering a pre-filing order, the district court must provide notice 8 and an opportunity to be heard to the party against whom the order is sought. Id. If the Court 9 imposes a pre-filing order, it must set forth which cases and motions support its conclusion that 10 the party’s filings are so numerous or abusive that the party should be enjoined, make 11 substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions, and narrowly 12 tailor the order to “fit the specific vice encountered.” Id. (quoting De Long v. Hennessey,

1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990)). 14 District courts considering imposing a pre-filing order on a vexatious litigant should 15 consider four factors. Id. The first two requirements, “(1) notice and an opportunity to be heard 16 and (2) the creation of an adequate record, are procedural considerations – that is, the factors 17 define ‘[a] specific method or course of action’ that district courts should use to assess whether 18 to declare a party a vexatious litigant and enter a pre-filing order.” Id. at 1057-58 (quoting Black’s 19 Law Dictionary 1241 (8th ed. 2004)). The latter two factors, requiring “(3) findings of 20 frivolousness or harassment and (4) that the order be narrowly tailored to prevent the litigant’s 21 abusive behavior, are substantive considerations – that is, the factors help the district court 22 define who is, in fact, a vexatious litigant.” Id. at 1058. Those factors allow a district court to 23 “construct a remedy that will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing 24 the litigant’s right to access the courts.” Id. 1 II. Analysis 2 Having cautiously reviewed the pertinent circumstances, I find that a narrowly tailored 3 order prohibiting Allison from bringing additional litigation in this District is appropriate. 4 i. Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard 5 I issued an August 3, 2022, Order for Allison to show cause as to why he should not be 6 deemed a vexatious litigant and subjected to a pre-filing order. ECF No. 3. I gave Allison until 7 August 19, 2022 to respond to that Order. Id. To date, he has not responded. I have waited a few 8 days beyond the August 19th deadline in order to give Allison every opportunity to be heard, yet 9 he appears to have abandoned responding to this case. Allison neither responded to the 10 Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah’s Report and Recommendation in 11 this case recommending dismissal (ECF No. 2), nor to my Order adopting Judge Youchah’s 12 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3). Consequently, I find that Allison was given notice 13 and an opportunity to be heard yet he took advantage of neither. 14 ii. Creation of an Adequate Record 15 Judge Youchah diligently performed the task of compiling all 123 lawsuits filed by 16 Allison. See Exhibit 1, ECF No. 2 at 7-9. In adopting Judge Youchah’s Report and 17 Recommendation (R&R), I noted that Allison filed 123 lawsuits in this District over the past 18 thirty-one months yet does not seem interested in pursuing his cases after filing. Of the “123 19 times Plaintiff has initiated a claim, the Court found only one [instance] that was allowed to 20 proceed.” ECF No. 2 at 4, n.1. “Despite numerous orders by various judges giving Plaintiff an 21 opportunity to correct defective filings, he has not once done so.” ECF No. 2 at 4 (collecting 22 cases). To ensure the creation of an adequate record, I also list a portion of the cases compiled by 23 Judge Youchah, infra, section iii, and incorporate by reference into this Order Exhibit 1 to Judge 24 Youchah’s R&R, as if fully set forth herein. 1 iii. Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment 2 Allison’s litigation has been both frivolous and harassing. This Circuit has adopted a five- 3 factor standard which “provides a helpful framework” for determining whether the plaintiff’s 4 litigation has been frivolous or harassing. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058 (citing Safir v. United States Lines, 5 Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1986)). That standard includes: (1) “the litigant’s history of litigation 6 and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative suits”; (2) “the litigant’s 7 motive in pursuing the litigation” and “whether the litigant had a good faith expectation of 8 prevailing”; (3) “whether the litigant is represented by counsel”; (4) “whether the litigant has 9 caused unnecessary expense to the parties or placed a needless burden on the courts”; and (5) 10 “whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Safir, 792 11 F.2d at 24. Here, all five factors weigh in favor of a finding of frivolousness and harassment. 12 As to the first factor, Allison has a history of filing duplicative suits. For example, he has 13 filed multiple cases against the courts and court officials despite admonitions informing him of 14 those parties are immune from being sued. See, e.g., Allison v. Clark County Justice Cts., 2:21-cv-00148- 15 RFB-EJY (Jan. 25, 2021); Allison v. Clark County Justice Cts., 2:21-cv-00164-GMN-NJK (Jan. 29, 16 2021); Allison v. Clark County Cts., 2:21-cv-01395-JAD-NJK (July 26, 2021); Allison v. Clark County, Cts., 17 Jails, 2:21-cv-01400-GMN-NJK (July 23, 2021); Allison v. U.S. Dist. Cts. et al., 2:21-cv-01604-RFB-EJY 18 (Aug. 30, 2021); Allison v. U.S. Dist. Cts. et al., 2:21-cv-01605-JAD-BNW (Aug. 30, 2021); Allison v. 19 Judge Christy Craig et al., 2:21-cv-01736-GMN-VCF (Sept. 21, 2021); Allison v. U.S. Dist. et al., 2:21-cv- 20 01852-JAD-DJA (Oct. 6, 2021); Allison v. District Cts., 2:22-cv-00264-APG-NJK (Feb. 11, 2022); 21 Allison v. Nevada Dist. Cts. et al., 2:22-cv-00333-GMN-BNW (Feb. 23, 2022); and the present action, 22 Allison v. U.S. Dist. Cts. Clerks Office. 23 Allison has also filed duplicative litigation against the various attorneys who have 24 prosecuted or defended him. See, e.g., Allison v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorneys, 2:20-cv-01810-APG-VCF 1 (Sept. 24, 2020); Allison v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 2:21-cv-00163-APG-DJA (Jan. 29, 2021); Allison 2 v. 8th & 9th Dist. Attorneys Offices, 2:21-cv-01625-RFB-BNW (Sept. 1, 2021); Allison v. Office of Public 3 Defenders of Clark Cnty., NV, 2:22-cv-00183-RFB-VCF (Feb. 1, 2022); Allison v. Clark Cnty. Dist. 4 Attorney’s Office, et al., 2:22-cv-00238-RFB-VCF (Feb. 7, 2022); Allison v. Dist. Attorney of JC12, 2:22- 5 cv-00270-JAD-VCF (Feb. 11, 2022); Allison v. Office of the Public Defenders, 2:22-cv-00770-RFB-NJK 6 (May 16, 2022); Allison v. Office of the Public Defender, 2:22-cv-01061-JAD-DJA (July 6, 2022). 7 Allison has also filed duplicative litigation against the two locations he has been 8 detained, Clark County Detention Center and the Stein Forensics Unit. See, e.g., Allison v. CCDC, 9 2:20-cv-00111-APG-EJY (Jan. 15, 2020); Allison v. CCDC, 2:20-cv-00168-RFB-NJK (Jan. 22, 2020); 10 Allison v. CCDC, 2:20-cv-00216-RFB-BNW (Jan. 30, 2020); Allison v. CCDC, 2:20-cv-01612-GMN- 11 NJK (Sept. 1, 2020); Allison v. CCDC, 2:20-cv-01628-RFB-DJA (Sept. 1, 2020); Allison v. CCDC, 12 2:20-cv-01631-JAD-BNW (Sept. 1, 2020); Allison v. CCDC et al., 2:20-cv-01632-RFB-DJA (Sept. 1, 13 2020); Allison v. CCDC Medical Psych. Dep’t, 2:20-cv-01707-GMN-NJK (Sept. 14, 2020); Allison v. 14 CCDC Psychiatric Ward, 2:20-cv-02026-GMN-DJA (Oct. 30, 2020); Allison v. CCDC et al., 2:21-cv- 15 00096-JAD-BNW (Jan. 15, 2021); Allison v. CCDC Medical et al., 2:21-cv-00126-APG-NJK (Jan. 22, 16 2021); Allison v. CCDC et al., 2:21-cv-00149-JAD-DJA (Jan. 25, 2021); Allison v. CCDC Medical Dep’t, 17 2:21-cv-00165-RFB-BNW (Jan. 29, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-00168-GMN-DJA (Jan. 29, 18 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01170-JAD-EJY (June 21, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01225-JAD- 19 VCF (June 29, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01226-GMN-NJK (June 29, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 20 2:21-cv-01320-JAD-BNW (July 9, 2021); Allison v. CCDC & Staff, 2:21-cv-01321-JAD-NJK (July 13, 21 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01324 (July 13, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01325-RFB-EJY (July 22 9, 2021); Allison v. CCDC, 2:21-cv-01339-RFB-EJY (July 14, 2021); Allison v. The Employees of Stein 23 Hosp., 2:21-cv-01401-RFB-EJY (July 23, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-01541-RFB-VCF 24 (Aug. 19, 2021); Allison v. Stein Health Policy et al., 2:21-cv-01543-RFB-DJA (Aug. 19, 2021); Allison v. 1 Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-01546-GMN-VCF (Aug. 19, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv- 2 01548-APG-EJY (Aug. 19, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-01571-GMN-BNW (Aug. 24, 3 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit and Staff et al., 2:21-cv-01666-GMN-NJK (Sept. 9, 2021); Allison v. 4 Stein Forensics Unit & Staff, 2:21-cv-01682-RFB-NJK (Sept. 13, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit & 5 Staff, 2:21-cv-01683-GMN-BNW (Sept. 13, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit & Staff, 2:21-cv-01715- 6 APG-DJA (Sept. 16, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit et al., 2:21-cv-01717-RFB-BNW (Sept. 17, 7 2021); Allison v. Stein Physicians et al., 2:21-cv-01735-RFB-BNW (Sept. 20, 2021); Allison v. Staff & 8 Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-01784-APG-NJK (Sept. 27, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit & Staff, 9 2:21-cv-01787-JAD-EJY (Sept. 27, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit & Staff, 2:21-cv-01791-JAD- 10 DJA (Sept. 27, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit & Staff, 2:21-cv-01814-APG-NJK (Sept. 30, 2021); 11 Allison v. Stein Treatment Teams, 2:21-cv-01883-JAD-EJY (Oct. 12, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit et 12 al., 2:21-cv-01884-APG-NJK (Oct. 12, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-02024-GMN-DJA 13 (Nov. 8, 2021); Allison v. Stein Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-02025-RFB-BNW (Nov. 8, 2021); Allison v. Stein 14 Forensics Unit, 2:21-cv-02027-RFB-NJK (Nov. 8, 2021); Allison v. CCDC Staff, 2:22-cv-00015-GMN- 15 EJY (Jan. 4, 2022); Allison v. CCDC, 2:22-cv-00302-APG-VCF (Feb. 18, 2022); Allison v. Booking 16 Offices of CCDC, 2:22-cv-00479-RFB-EJY (Mar. 17, 2022); Allison v. CCDC, 2:22-cv-00692-CDS- 17 VCF (Apr. 25, 2022); Allison v. CCDC and Medical Staff, 2:22-cv-00772-ART-VCF (May 16, 2022); 18 Allison v. CCDC, 2:22-cv-00805-RFB-EJY (May 20, 2022); Allison v. CCDC et al., 2:22-cv-00873- 19 ART-BNW (June 1, 2022); Allison v. CCDC, 2:22-cv-00926-GMN-EJY (June 8, 2022); Allison v. 20 CCDC Food Service and Health Dep’t, 2:22-cv-01062-JAD-EJY (July 6, 2022); Allison v. CCDC Medical 21 Dep’t, 2:22-cv-01064-APG-NJK (July 6, 2022); Allison v. CCDC, 2:22-cv-01065-CDS-VCF (July 6, 22 2022). 23 While the above-listed examples are not the only cases in which Allison raises the same 24 or similar claims against the same or overlapping defendants, they serve to illustrate the 1 frequency of Allison’s efforts. Multiple lawsuits filed on the same day, against the same 2 defendants, containing various allegations that do not give rise to a cause of action, demonstrate 3 a pattern of vexatiousness and harassment that flagrantly abuses our judicial system. The first 4 factor of the Safir test weighs in favor of a finding of vexatiousness and/or harassment. 5 As to the second factor, Allison’s motives in pursuing the myriad of litigation and his 6 expectations of prevailing are unclear. On more than 50 occasions he has failed to file in forma 7 pauperis applications, repeatedly sued the same immune entities and individuals with no 8 possibility of prevailing on the claims asserted, and never corrects defective filings. ECF No. 2 at 9 3-4. Giving Allison “the benefit of every doubt,” ECF No. 2 at 4, it is possible that Allison at one 10 point held a subjective belief that he raises potentially meritorious claims. But Allison may also 11 truly misunderstand the role of the courts and have a good-faith basis for bringing his 12 complaints to this Court’s attention. 13 Allison seems to mistakenly believe that by filing complaints with this Court, the job of 14 the clerk of court is to alert various federal agencies to his alleged violations of law. For example, 15 in his suit against “Enterprise Rental Car” (meaning to sue Enterprise Rent-A-Car), Allison 16 notes that he “assumes you all [i.e., the federal judiciary] have done your duty as federal 17 employees, and reported all the crimes I’ve listed in my civil actions, to the FBI & federal 18 authorities.” Allison v. Enterprise Rental Car, 22-cv-002678-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2022), ECF 19 No. 1 at 2. He continues, “[t]hat’s why I want to be sure your office has been reporting the 20 crimes, as I’ve requested because if not, that means your clerks have been engaged in organized 21 crime to protect the crooked courts committing organized crime for money!” Id. 22 On other occasions, Allison seems to use the litigation as a forum to express 23 discontentment with persons or offices, beliefs about a number of perceived injustices, and 24 overall disillusionment with various federal agencies. See, e.g., Allison v. The Illegal Monopoly of a Court 1 System of Clark Cnty., 2:22-cv-00269-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2022), ECF No. 1 at 2. In that case, 2 Allison seeks “50 million dollars in damages and 20 million in punitive damages” because 3 Nevada’s state courts have “conspire[d] to violate [Allison’s] rights” via “the illegal monopoly, 4 consisting of judges, district attorneys, and public defenders[.]” Id. 5 In sum, Allison’s motivations behind filing seem to be mixed. He may be confused or his 6 repetitive filings may be the result of unidentified or unknown cognitive issues; the Court 7 cannot and does not speculate on this subject matter. As a result, the second factor of the Safir 8 test does not weigh too heavily in my calculus for determining vexatiousness or harassment. 9 As to the third factor, Allison is neither represented by counsel in the instant action nor 10 represented in the vast majority – if not all – of the other cases. This factor weighs in favor of a 11 finding of vexatiousness. 12 As to the fourth factor, Allison has indeed caused unnecessary expense to the parties or 13 placed a needless burden on the courts. This Court is duty-bound to read through each filing 14 that comes before it. However, the Magistrate Judges of this District and Clerks of Court often 15 handle the important work of ensuring pro se filings conform with the federal and local rules. 16 They are the ones burdened by Allison’s 123 cases, almost all of which he never intends to further 17 prosecute. Magistrate Judge Youchah noted that “Plaintiff is causing needless expense and 18 posing an extraordinary, unnecessary burden on the Court.” ECF No. 2 at 4. She adds that 19 “[d]espite explaining to Plaintiff on countless occasions how to initiate a proper claim, and 20 despite sending Plaintiff the instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application in excess of 50 21 times, Plaintiff persists in ignoring the Court’s instructions.” Id. I agree with this finding. The 22 parties Allison sues, often repetitively, are forced to defend litigation that Allison has no goal of 23 ever pursuing. This factor also weighs in favor of a finding of vexatiousness. 24 1 Finally, as to the fifth factor, no other sanctions would adequately protect the parties or 2 the judicial system. Monetary sanctions likely will fail to deter Allison, who is currently 3 incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2. A pre-filing restriction, 4 drawn as narrowly as possible, is the only way to curtail Allison’s behavior without unduly 5 infringing upon his rights of access to this Court. 6 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person 7 to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious 8 claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. I find Allison’s repetitive filings vexatious and 9 harassing, and thus seek to impose a narrowly tailored pre-filing order to protect judicial time 10 that could properly be used elsewhere. 11 iv. This Court’s Order is as Narrowly Tailored as Possible 12 A pre-filing order “must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” 13 Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059. Here, the specific vices encountered are Allison’s continued filing of 14 papers that fail to conform with the local rules of this District, Allison’s habitual refusal to 15 amend or correct those pleadings upon notice, and Allison’s abandonment of litigation in each 16 case. No remedy short of an injunction preventing Allison from filing further initiating 17 documents in this District will get Allison to cease his behavior. However, a “pre-filing order 18 likely is overbroad if it prevents the litigant from filing any suit in the Court, or applies to a suit 19 against anyone when the record showed plaintiff was litigious with respect to only one group of 20 defendants.” Ortiz v. Cox,

(D. Nev. 2011) (citing Molski, 500 F.3d at 21 1061). 22 Consequently, this Court must tailor an Order narrower than a general restriction upon 23 Allison from filing suit. Instead, a prohibition against Allison filing documents pro se without 24 first obtaining leave of court should serve to protect Allison’s right of access to the courts while 1 also maintaining the efficacy of the judicial branch. Allison may, of course, still seek permission 2 from the Chief Judge of this District when he seeks to bring suit as a pro se litigant. He may also, 3 with counsel, initiate litigation in this District without seeking leave. Practicing attorneys in the 4 State of Nevada must follow rules of ethics that require them to bring proceedings only if “there 5 is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Nev. R. Prof. Cond. 3.1. Allison’s non- 6 frivolous claims in the future will thus still have access to the courts, whether he is represented 7 by counsel and can file immediately or proceeding pro se and required to file after obtaining leave 8 from the Chief Judge of this District. 9 III. Conclusion 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ronald J. Allison is a vexatious litigant and therefore 11 enjoined and prohibited under

(a) from filing any complaint, petition, or other 12 document in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada that relates to initiating 13 litigation as a pro se litigant without first obtaining pre-filing permission from the Chief Judge of 14 this Court. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Allison intends to file any papers with this Court 16 that relate in any way to initiating litigation as a pro se litigant, he must first comply with the 17 following instructions: 18 1. Allision must apply to the Chief Judge of this District for leave to file 19 the initiating documents by submitting to the clerk’s office an 20 application bearing the title “Application to Chief District Judge 21 Seeking Leave to File” and which must be supported by a declaration 22 from Allison, made under penalty of perjury, stating that (1) the 23 matters asserted in the new complaint or papers have never been 24 raised and disposed of on their merits by any court; (2) the claim or 1 claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith; and (3) he has conducted 2 a reasonable investigation of the facts and such investigation supports 3 the claim or claims; and 4 2. Allison must attach a copy of this Order to any such application. 5 Failure to comply with this Order will constitute sufficient grounds for denial of Allison’s 6 application. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject, refuse to file, 8 and discard any new complaint, petition, or document on a closed case, or any other litigation- 9 initiating documents submitted pro se without prior compliance with this Order. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED this August 25, 2022 13 14 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24