Ma v. Department of Education

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ROLAND MA, CASE NO. C19-1112-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Based upon the record in this matter, it appears Plaintiff is using the Court as a vehicle to harass and antagonize certain parties, rather than as a forum to resolve a valid dispute. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 67, 72.) The Court has been apprised that Plaintiff has not complied with the parties’ settlement agreement and, therefore, remains in contempt of the Court. (Dkt. No. 72.) Yet Plaintiff has failed to make any of the $250 weekly payments required by the Court in its previous orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 62, 69.)

22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court may enjoin a vexatious litigant to restrict such litigant’s access to the Court. Before doing so, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose a vexatious litigant order for his repeated abuses of the judicial process in this matter. Such an order would limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future claims against parties before this Court. Plaintiff’s response must be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.

4 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

6 DATED this 29th day of December 2020.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE