1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Matthew T. Houston, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01740-JAD-EJY

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Declaring Matthew T. Houston a Vexatious Litigant and Imposing Prefiling 6 Encore Event Technologies, et al., Injunction

7 Defendants

8

9 In April of this year, I dismissed with prejudice pro se plaintiff Matthew T. Houston’s 10 complaint, which is largely inscrutable and consists primarily of a hodgepodge of random pages 11 from other state-court actions. Because this filing was similar to many other frivolous ones that 12 Houston has filed in this court, at the same time, I ordered Houston to show cause in writing why 13 he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subject to a prefiling injunction for future 14 actions. That show-cause order lays out the extensive history of Houston’s many frivolous suits 15 and details why his perpetual regurgitation of hundreds upon hundreds of miscellaneous pages 16 from old state-court actions is a flagrant abuse of the judicial process that impedes the 17 adjudication of other pending matters. Though Houston filed three responses to that order, not 18 one of them offers a useful—let alone meritorious—argument. Having thoroughly reviewed the 19 circumstances of this case and the numerous others Houston has filed in this court, I find that he 20 has grossly abused the judicial process with his recycled, meritless, and nonsensical filings, 21 which put an unnecessary burden on this court and its personnel. This unrelenting conduct 22 warrants the extreme remedy of a prefiling order that requires Houston to obtain express 23 permission from the Chief Judge before filing any new action that contains recycled filings. 1 Discussion 2 A. The court has the authority to impose a prefiling order on a vexatious litigant. 3 Federal district courts have the “ancient” inherent authority to issue writs—including a 4 prefiling order—to prevent litigants from continuing to file frivolous lawsuits and abuse the

5 judicial process.1 Prefiling orders are an extreme remedy and should be granted only “after a 6 cautious review of the pertinent circumstances.”2 Before entering a prefiling order, the district 7 court must provide the party against whom the order is sought notice and an opportunity to be 8 heard.3 If the court imposes a prefiling order, it must set forth which cases and motions support 9 its conclusion that the party’s filings are so numerous or abusive that they should be enjoined, 10 make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions, and 11 narrowly tailor the order to “fit the specific vice encountered.”4 The Ninth Circuit has adopted 12 the Second Circuit’s five-factor framework to determine “whether a party is a vexatious litigant 13 and whether a pre-filing order will stop the vexatious litigation”: 14 (1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing[,] or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the 15 litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good[-]faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) 16 whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed 17 an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts 18 and other parties.5

19

20 1 Moy v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Hartford Textile Corp.,

, 897 (2d Cir. 1982)); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,

(9th 21 Cir. 2007) (citing

(a)). 2 Molski,

(citation omitted). 22 3

(citation omitted). 23 4

(quoting De Long v. Hennessey,

(9th Cir. 1990)). 5 Molski,

(quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc.,

, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)). 1 B. Houston’s repeated initiation of actions based on the same frivolous, nonsensical, and recycled pages of filings in this and other courts makes him a vexatious litigant, 2 and a prefiling order is necessary to curb this abuse.

3 The court’s April 13, 2023, order to show cause (OSC) gave Houston notice of the 4 practices that this court deems abusive and an opportunity to be heard.6 The three responses 5 from Houston demonstrate that he is either unwilling to do—or just incapable of doing—little 6 more than bombard the court with the same, recycled pages that populate the vast majority of his 7 submissions. For his first response, Houston merely added this case number and the words 8 “AND RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. HOUSTON IS NOT A 9 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT” to the notice of appeal that he filed in a different case (2:21-cv-499- 10 JAD-DJA) back in February,7 and slapped it atop 277 assorted and jumbled pages from filings in 11 other cases.8 From what this court can tell, none of those recycled pages addresses anything 12 related to this vexatious-litigant issue. 13 Houston’s second response addresses me by my first name and says, “Can you please 14 show just a little respect and stop threatening me? . . . I never threatened Mr. Albreghts [sic]. In 15 earlier letters I politely requested that you please read the newspaper article describing my 16 accident so you would understand, because I am NOT a vexatious litigant. You can please read 17 the attached interpleadings and bill ALL of my court fees to Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 18 LLP.”9 But he follows that statement with more recycled pages of state-court filings that are 19 entirely unresponsive to the vexatious-litigant issue. Houston’s third response, consisting of 54 20 21 6 ECF No. 19 (OSC). 22 7 See ECF No. 52 in 2:21-cv-499-JAD-DJA. 23 8 See ECF No. 20. 9 ECF No. 23. recycled pages, is similarly useless for this purpose.!° The net result of these three tries is a 2|| single, conclusory assertion that Houston is not a vexatious litigant—and 338 pages of unrelated miscellany. Instead of refuting Houston’s vexatious status, these filings only further prove it. 4 Houston’s abuse of this court has escalated to the point that a prefiling injunction is 5||necessary. The complaint in this case is one that Houston has filed in half a dozen cases. 6) Occasionally he swaps out the name of the target defendant. But the great bulk of the complaint 7\| and its recycled attachments remain the same. The first page recites the court’s basis for 8|| jurisdiction and alleges that Houston “‘is currently falsly [sic] imprisoned, wrongfully convicted and being restrained of his liberty” and that “[t]hese violations are retroactive from September 20, 2016[,] and have been ongoing throughout” the country: 11 bese 2:20-cM01740,JAD-EJY Document 1-1 Filed 1017122 Page lot 16 Case 2:22-cv-02168-ART-EJY¥ Document 1-1 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 17 12 GOMT comp 13 fi iawesa ee □ Bor 650 : Yo Bet 650 va Springs, WW RIOFO-o6F Tyasan Springs, WY 20%0-c650 re) eat ridin Becta 14 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT NORTHERN DISTMicT OF mphemy cCOWA ¥ Eastern teamdliomens Division 15 MATTHEW TRAVIS | N ase Ne MATTHEW TRAVIS Houston , Case Ne._22-cv-133-LTS-MAR Plawtiif 5 ha iby □ Plow it? Go be Supplied by Cler k ef Courts COMPLAINT COMPLAINT 16 4 E EVENT ‘TECH £5,ET AL, ENCORE EVENT TECHNOLOGIES ALS cy Trial Demanded ?? See cont No, A-AF-F58%64-C SE ete ae ahs Ol G. 17 J A. JURISDICTION 2 ) The Court has jarisdetion over Ais action pursuant 404 ; 28 08.6, § I94d(OdC)s 42 U.5.c. § 1483 18 | and 28 0.8.4, §1332(0XD) \ | 4) Ploanti#f is currently Falsly amprisoned, wronaSuly convicted i and being vestvoined & his Woerty od High Deserk Stedte Person 19 : wm Xwadsan Springs, Nevada, 7 j 2) These viclasrons ane Fetroackive Frem September 20, 2016 20 ‘ land hove been elngoing Hhrougharr Moguckete and Lowa Citys = \ ik : [Towa Los Angeles, Huwctington, Beach ank Newport Bead, CA; a (San Luis, Boson Rouge and New Orleans, LAY Boy St.Louis, MS; . land multiple other distrsets sncluding Las Vegas, Nevada. 71 i eT Page tof aa a cc 990. Geolaa Ea (Noture of Suit: 190,360, 970,380 ond 150) we Revised: September $0, 202 22 Revised: September 30, 202.9 23 10 ECF No. 24.

] The rest of the document contains quotes from Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl about Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain’s death affected him; entries from a “dream journal”; and disjointed 3] narratives about a conspiracy involving his disability claims from a 2016 “work accident at Mandalay Bay Resort” (which he claims is “substantially proven by the ‘events’ of” the mass 5] shooting that happened in Las Vegas on October 1, 2021), and his victimization by someone named “Sedgwick,” whom Houston explains is “illegally using public and state of Nevada 7\| resources to steal from the Social Security Administration, my doctors, my dogs, my public 8|| safety first responders, my team of life-saving Americans,” and “my campaign funds of Joe 9|| Lombardo for Governor of Nevada and many charitable organizations.”'! He attaches to this 10|| complaint a recycled “affidavit” and copies of petitions and emergency motions that he apparently filed in Nevada state-court case C-21-357927 more than a year ago. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 2: 22-cv-2168-ART-EJY 2:22-cv-1740-JAD-EJY 13 Ci 2B DE aL AISA Page 2 = Seep Set msatag □□ ocean tA Wiest Pegg alt! ase 272 6 0140NAD EY Document 11 sod s014702—Page2o+16—§ The Delendont -Reopondemts including Las Vecas Mumicrar Poutce Dee, mal Nye COMPLAINT 7 COMPLAINT □ Chotk County Office _of je Digtnot AWtorne, Steven 6. Wolfson 4 The Defendomt (s)- Respendert's “relading Pico NENT TedW asbiks : The _Defendor 10(s)-Respen dents eluding PRORE □□□□ □□□□□□ end “Dionne, Ferrante, base coused nat Orly further end Dinne. ferent caneed moh anh, farther. L_and Dinnwe, Ferrante: hage coused not aly - □□□□□□□ 14 saps “pee Noasinuhbiontafier tojere A obfan. las. on a es chee asec nat: bly farther 2 sigon4—iapon Voostainhu hiyielier tn cea. tan □□□□ >__on totally partvanedl, dAScbled c7tzent We fe nh > on otal, permoneuiy, dfSabled cf#tzent □□□ the’ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ soMed rregleok, a a 4 des saennas clicpuateitiy, will □□□□□□□□ other schemes bar Sinattedl” to Hep ‘legal: 5 Gal other. echemes. Mspousoiltiy, will tgaleck, the llega) 5 aul other Sclemes, bot Simitecl” te □□□ □□□□□□□ □ 15 extortion af. Honstoris _ciscliltty ome whikts are. GS pyteryion a Howson clisabttity ohims, whith ate © exterrion a touttoris clisabtlity obsms, □□□ are Z_substantislly proseys by the, “evewis™ 3 October zo 2_substantillly pepsesn hy the. “evewke™ JE Ocdober L292). %_substantillly “peouen by the, “evenic” oF Ocdober 155 p24. B___Sedoyoic’ oud ift couns’] □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | Grate senate oud Hi counsi! Da Schuctisaseardatable | 288 Sedat oud His counsil Dat □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Aausious cel_matt be held cecooutable. fic the S_nustous ond ruse be held acconutable Fic Hoo 9 nustouze_and rast beheld _accovtable. Bethe l 6 nee a asd the, people of © domiages. sebliaal spo —Hostina ality hee of damages a Howsten alte oe —Newode. Tn reg Bvents, L_AMe, “Soho. Newoda. 0 regords to “event W_ se, “State, □□ Newada. _Tn_ regard events", □□ Mast Vasa Worle to sufha of oe \2___ Websters fod arch Lowlinues Fo filha ‘Bec BATTERED Heustod bos avd Yowttnues to □□□ Ea ee □□ RSS. § PORE fs redo! Sion va mers, trave 1S_PERSoNS. S¥nomome as rebstt of cUpviving Sof chrawinas _PERSoNs YnoRome 6 rebvik ef surviving’ □□ □□□□□□ ather a. Oe eee a as Bole work {7 aiher: ian. Ove OCWGGR ak hin BOLE wok i Saye | Oumkek ood vis □□□□ werk 17 5 cxcetdent ak “Mandalay Tay ) Fnalading: Ls-e. atcenk at “Mandalay Bay Gases) taeuding: fi 1S cacetdenste 2 Manhalay Tiny Gates) □□□ *doosn & ufcle Rawal Saal ~2%\y IG sdeasin of uf \ enc ~25\Q 6 ~deosn of _vintle whol Scneewuenc = □□□□ = while, sega inecncorated ti: NDOC De a disisseh case. Cesales ayy inecocoraded it foe o chsetssed case. 2_while. ee Soro chismissed cases \B suneide at uncle Rollie Seheowwerr = 2elF, eo A lie Sibeeninenh ~ Zot], | \g E + guleide, face. Rollie Sebeeiisent — □□□□ Pinnee Son Auta spas to totl-afler_leenng | DALgt barnes “her ital inn A Saas tee || game Se □□ ee □□□□ 18 focie st ae hs ail ki —_ ae — pL Siidde & □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ = 20H i Heuidde = locate tel Houston = □□□□ %__uatlnessed domestic violence Vetiseen tis parents lic “Sisk Ga a ewib ado hoo” ftneased Hamel lene ete □ 23 Blen aso cli alG@H = 2000, 7decseurul afd ote se HSV Gea aguas AGUA ig a Sea Gr adi Eee □□ assim nak sean 262 Sat St era at lit, pte Tapp | 18 dali leggy tn epi □□ PE Boee ition Dany bith tm Lit os ett i olay he st AG phat Bl Gen (Monae lpi i bay □□ aos He 2 ach, Than ayo fc scab ff. wakeup Yate — 1B Aa dal skcaded dors oh Bt Cas aca cig □ ee 28 ay cit wech_seoosied 18 2018 ob wacky fe Cive, E wt tn hse. rately fr salam shons losing’ an Tamany, Boob =. 24 Se ra he prone * S-sou Liadan Fanony, □□□ □□ 20 FA records. for. sabe” P QE B-fom dyvising an Finny, Zetl. Ley | a □□□ 21 22 23 ECF No. 1-1 at 7.

1 When recommending dismissal of Houston’s complaints in Case No. 2:22-cv-01780-ART-DJA, 2 which contained most of the same pages as the complaint in this case,12 the magistrate judge 3 appropriately summarized it as indecipherable and delusional: 4 Plaintiff’s complaint is nearly impossible to decipher. He names multiple defendants and alludes to a conspiracy against him which 5 he appears to allege resulted in his imprisonment. The remainder of his complaint includes disjointed pages that include a dream 6 journal and excerpts from a magazine. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s previous order by filing his application 7 late. His complaint also includes delusional allegations.13 8 Houston’s most recent suit, filed just last month, recycles this very same complaint yet again.14 9 So yet one more judge will have to devote resources to address it. 10 As the Ninth Circuit explained in De Long v. Hennessey, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial 11 process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that 12 properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.”15 The sheer 13 numbers alone show that Houston’s filings are monopolizing far too much of this court’s 14 valuable resources for no good-faith purpose: 15 • Houston has filed 19 actions in this district in the last 3 1/2 years—16 of which have 16 been dismissed.16 17

18 12 Compare ECF No. 5, pp. 9–20 in Case 2:22-cv-01780-ART-DJA with ECF No.1-1 in the instant case. 19 13 ECF No. 8 in Case 2:22-cv-01780-ART-DJA at 1. 20 14 See ECF No. 1-1 in Case 2:23-cv-1423-APG-EJY. 15 De Long v. Hennessey,

(9th Cir. 1990). 21 16 2:19-cv-01360-RFB-VCF; 2:19-cv-01475-GMN-EJY; 2:19-cv-01371-JAD-DJA; 2:19-cv- 01472-APG-DJA; 2:19-cv-01740-APG-BNW; 2:22-cv-01745-APG-DJA; 2:21-cv-00499-JAD- 22 DJA; 2:22-cv-02168-ART-EJY; 2:22-cv-00693-JAD-NJK; 2:22-cv-01285-MMD-VCF; 2:23-cv- 00031-RFB-DJA; 2:22-cv-01607-APG-CSD; 2:22-cv-01685-JCM-DJA; 2:22-cv-01740-JAD- 23 EJY; 2:22-cv-01748-APG-DJA; 2:22-cv-01780-ART-DJA; 2:23-CV01210-APG-DJA; 2:23-CV- 1349-JAD-BNW; 2:23-cv-01423-APG-EJY. 1 • He has been deemed a restricted filer in 7 of them.17 2 • His claims and filings were found “plainly frivolous,” “patently” or “plainly” 3 “meritless,” “delusional,” “largely inscrutable,” or “nonsensical” in 6 of them.18 4 • Another 6 were dismissed for failure to comply with court orders.19

5 • And the Ninth Circuit has dismissed as “frivolous” at least 1 of Houston’s appeals from 6 these cases.20 7 Although Houston has a right to access the courts, that right does not allow him to abuse 8 the judicial process through repeated, nonsensical, frivolous filings that waste the court’s limited 9 resources. His lawsuits and filings are far more than duplicative. He plainly lacks a good-faith 10 expectation of prevailing. He consistently foists an unnecessary burden on this court, its judges, 11 and its staff (and his recycled filings demonstrate that he’s doing the same thing to the Nevada 12 state courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well). And the fact that this court has 13 many times restricted his filings demonstrates that lesser sanctions aren’t helping to curb his 14 filing abuses. After a painstaking and cautious review of the pertinent circumstances, I conclude

15 that a narrowly drawn prefiling restriction is the only way to curtail this abusive behavior 16 without unduly infringing Houston’s right to otherwise access this court. I therefore find that an 17 order preventing Houston from commencing any new actions without first obtaining the 18 19 17 2:19-cv-01360-RFB-VCF; 2:19-cv-01475-GMN-EJY; 2:22-cv-01607-DWM-CSD; 2:22-cv- 20 01745-APG-DJA; 2:22-cv-00693-JAD-NJK; 2:22-cv-01285-MMD-VCF; 2:22-cv-01685-JCM- DJA. 21 18 2:22-cv-01745-APG-DJA; 2:21-cv-00499-JAD-DJA; 2:22-cv-00693-JAD-NJK; 2:22-cv- 22 01285-MMD-VCF; 2:22-cv-01780-ART-DJA; 2:23-cv-1349-JAD-BNW. 19 2:19-cv-01371-JAD-DJA; 2:19-cv-01472-APG-DJA; 2:19-cv-01740-APG-BNW; 2:22-cv- 23 01607-DWM-CSD; 2:22-cv-01685-JCM-DJA; and 2:22-cv-01748-APG-DJA. 20 ECF No. 39 in 2:19-cv-01371-JAD-DJA (Ninth Circuit appeal no. 22-16439). 1 permission of the Chief Judge of this court is appropriate. So I enter a prefiling order against 2 Houston. 3 Conclusion 4 IT IS ORDERED that Matthew T. Houston is a vexatious litigant who is therefore

5 ENJOINED and PROHIBITED under

(a) from commencing a new action 6 with a case-initiation document (whether complaint, petition, or otherwise) that contains, 7 attaches, or incorporates filings from Houston’s other cases in this district or in the Nevada 8 state courts without first obtaining prefiling permission from the Chief Judge of this 9 district. This means that, if Houston desires to file a new action in the United States District 10 Court for the District of Nevada using any pages he has already filed in another case, he must 11 first: 12 • Apply to the Chief Judge of this district for leave to file the document by 13 submitting to the clerk’s office an application bearing the title “Application to 14 Chief District Judge Seeking Leave to File.”

15 • That application must be supported by a declaration from Houston, made 16 under penalty of perjury, stating that: (1) the matters asserted in the new 17 complaint or petition are different from those asserted in the actions he has 18 previously filed in this district; (2) the new claim or claims are not frivolous or 19 made in bad faith; (3) he has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and 20 such investigation supports the claim or claims. 21 • And Houston must attach a copy of this order to any such application. 22 Failure to fully comply with this order will constitute sufficient grounds for denial of the 23 application. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject, refuse to file, and discard any new case-commencement document submitted without prior compliance with this order. 2 5 USS. District Judged ennifek A) Dorsey October 24, 2023 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23