Victoria Tenisha Shanae Dillihunt v. Helen Keller

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 VICTORIA TENISHA SHANAE ) Case No. CV 24-7915 FMO (MARx) DILLIHUNT, ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: v. ) VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 14 ) HELEN KELLER, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 On September 12, 2024, Victoria Tenisha Shanae Dillihunt (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 18 (Dkt. 1) and a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (See Dkt. 4, “IFP Request”). The 19 Complaint is one of more than 70 frivolous and duplicative actions that plaintiff has filed in this 20 District. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to warn plaintiff that she may be designated as 21 a vexatious litigant. This Order places her on notice that the court is considering a vexatious 22 litigant order that will impose pre-filing conditions with which she must comply before filing another 23 complaint, IFP Request, or document in this District. If plaintiff opposes the designation, she must 24 file a written response to this Order by the deadline set forth below. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 “Federal courts can regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored 27 restrictions under . . . appropriate circumstances.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, [28] 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this District, the court 1 may, “[o]n its own motion,” initiate a vexatious litigant order at “any time,” which eventually may 2 result in “a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from the litigant . . . without written 3 authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge[.]” Local Rule 83-8.2. 4 “When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they must: (1) give litigants 5 notice and an opportunity to oppose the order before it [is] entered; (2) compile an adequate 6 record for appellate review, including a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court 7 to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed; (3) make substantive findings of 8 frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as to closely fit the specific vice 9 encountered.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The first 10 and second of these requirements are procedural, while the latter two factors . . . are substantive 11 considerations . . . [that] help the district court define who is, in fact, a ‘vexatious litigant’ and 12 construct a remedy that will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the 13 litigant’s right to access the courts.” Id. at 1063 (internal quotation marks omitted). Each 14 requirement is addressed below. 15 DISCUSSION 16 I. NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE THE ORDER. 17 This Order serves as notice to plaintiff that she has until the deadline set forth below to file 18 a written opposition to her designation as a vexatious litigant. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d 19 at 1063 (tentative ruling declaring plaintiffs as vexatious litigants and the provision of two weeks 20 to oppose it were sufficient to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard). The matter will be 21 decided without oral argument. See Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 22 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or 23 evidentiary hearing on the issue.”). 24 II. COMPILATION OF AN ADEQUATE RECORD FOR REVIEW. 25 “An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that led 26 the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.” De Long v. Hennessey, [27] 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). In its compilation of the record, the court lists the following 28 cases that were dismissed as frivolous: 1 1. Dillihunt v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Case No. 2 2:22-cv-08516-CJC-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 3 2. Dillihunt v. Beyonce Knowles, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-8817-CJC-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 4 3. Dillihunt v. Mike Scott, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-09097-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2022). 5 4. Dillihunt v. Barack Obama, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00542-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 6 5. Dillihunt v. Xi Jinping, Case No. 2:23-cv-01150-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 7 6. Dillihunt v. Kim Yo-Jong, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02071-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 8 7. Dillihunt v. Grace Cathedral, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02417-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 9 8. Dillihunt v. NASA, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02418-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 10 9. Dillihunt v. King Charles III, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02659-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 11 10. Dillihunt v. Roman Catholic Church Germany, et al., Case No. 12 2:23-cv-03246-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 13 11. Dillihunt v. Temple Mount, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03247-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 14 12. Dillihunt v. San Francisco Pride Offices, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03459-FMO-MAR 15 (C.D. Cal. 2023). 16 13. Dillihunt v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03965-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 17 14. Dillihunt v. Nicki Minaj, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04699-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 18 15. Dillihunt v. Jehovahs Witness, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-07729-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 19 2023). 20 16. Dillihunt v. Sones de Mexico Ensemble, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00151-FMO-RAO 21 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 22 17. Dillihunt v. National Medical Enterprises Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-HDV-SSC 23 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 24 18. Dillihunt v. Dr. Dre, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00549-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 25 19. Dillihunt v. Anthony Anderson, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-0051-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 26 2024). 27 20. Dillihunt v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00751-FMO-MAR (C.D. 28 Cal. 2024 ). 1 21. Dillihunt v. Internal Revenue Services, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01775-FMO-MAR (C.D. 2 Cal. 2024 ). 3 22. Dillihunt v. Compton Cowboys, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02642-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 4 2024). 5 23. Dillihunt v. Clive Davis, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03187-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 6 24. Dillihunt v. Sean Paul, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03602-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 7 25. Dillihunt v. One IA Potters House Church, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04076-FMO-MAR 8 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 9 26. Dillihunt v. One IA Potters House Church, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04530-FMO-MAR 10 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 11 27. Dillihunt v. Koken-ji Temple, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04684-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 12 2024). 13 28. Dillihunt v. Danica Roem, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04886-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 14 29. Dillihunt v. Hollywood Sikh Temple, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05155-FMO-MAR (C.D. 15 Cal. 2024 ). 16 30. Dillihunt v. Shekinah Glory Ministries, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05569-FMO-MAR (C.D. 17 Cal. 2024 ). 18 31. Dillihunt v. Micah Katt Williams, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05767-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 19 2024). 20 32. Dillihunt v. Cornell Iral Haynes, Jr., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05787-FMO-MAR (C.D. 21 Cal. 2024 ). 22 33. Dillihunt v. Ying Yang Twins, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05788-FMO-MAR (C. D. Cal. 23 2024). 24 34. Dillihunt v. Michael Kors, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05789-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 25 35. Dillihunt v. Javier Gerardo Milei, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05829-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 26 2024). 27 36. Dillihunt v. Alberto Fernandez, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05832-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 28 2024). 1 37. Dillihunt v. El Mirage Dry Lake, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05907-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2 2024). 3 38. Dillihunt v. Kansas City Chiefs, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05911-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 4 2024). 5 39. Dillihunt v. Florence Kasumba, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05912-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 6 2024). 7 40. Dillihunt v. Dwayne Michael Carter, Jr., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05988-FMO-MAR 8 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 9 41. Dillihunt v. Roxbury Latin School, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05990-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 10 2024). 11 42. Dillihunt v. Five Chi Shan Wang Guangming Temple, et al., Case No. 12 2:24-cv-05991-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 13 43. Dillihunt v. Gotham Smoke Shop, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06119-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 14 2024). 15 44. Dillihunt v. Martha Stewart, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-6156-FMO-MAR (C. D. Cal. 2024). 16 45. Dillihunt v. The Eastern Sister, Case No. 2:24-cv-06172-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 17 46. Dillihunt v. The Magic Rose, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06301-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 18 2024). 19 47. Dillihunt v. Botanica Nino Jesus, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06420-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 20 2024). 21 48. Dillihunt v. Bougainvillea Apartments, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06422-FMO-MAR (C.D. 22 Cal. 2024 ). 23 49. Dillihunt v. The Braid, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06507-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 24 50. Dillihunt v. Dragonara Casino, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06568-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 25 2024). 26 51. Dillihunt v. Charlie Brown Farms, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06571-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 27 2024). [28] 1 52. Dillihunt v. Compton Housing Authority, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06608-FMO-MAR 2 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 3 53. Dillihunt v. Caesars Superdome, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06618-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 4 2024). 5 54. Dillihunt v. Richard Lawson Studios Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06619-FMO-MAR 6 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 7 55. Dillihunt v. Sharon and Sons Flooring and Cabinets, et al., Case No. 8 2:24-cv-06620-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 9 56. Dillihunt v. Os Oils, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06621-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 10 57. Dillihunt v. Divine Retreat Center, Case No. 2:24-cv-06622-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 11 2024). 12 58. Dillihunt v. Jeddah, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06750-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 13 59. Dillihunt v. Power Station at Berklee NYC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06952-FMO-MAR 14 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 15 60. Dillihunt v. Merida Auto Registration and Insurance, et al., Case No. 16 2:24-cv-07290-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 17 61. Dillihunt v. The Victory Beer, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07398-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 18 2024). 19 62. Dillihunt v. Ram Building Remodeling Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07607-FMO-MAR 20 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 21 63. Dillihunt v. Lams Thai and Chinese Restaurant, et al., Case No. 22 2:24-cv-07609-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 23 64. Dillihunt v. Victoria Gardens, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07639-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 24 2024). 25 65. Dillihunt v. Kenneth Edward Bailey, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07732-FMO-MAR (C.D. 26 Cal. 2024 ). 27 66. Dillihunt v. Kais Saied, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07738-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 28 67. Dillihunt v. REV Group, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07772-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024). 1 68. Dillihunt v. Rara Dining, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07799-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2024.) 2 69. Dillihunt v. Knights Templar Commandery, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00033-RGK-SP 3 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 4 70. Dillihunt v. Johnson and Trinity Bail Bonds, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01927-FMO-MAR 5 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 6 71. Dillihunt v. Disneyland, Case No. 8:23-cv-00473-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal. 2023). 7 III. FRIVOLOUSNESS AND HARASSMENT. 8 “[I]t is incumbent on the court to make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing 9 nature of the litigant's actions.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064 (internal quotation marks 10 omitted). To qualify as frivolous, “[t]he plaintiff's claims must not only be numerous, but also be 11 patently without merit.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the alternative, to qualify as harassment, “the filing of 13 several similar types of actions [must] constitute[] an intent to harass the defendant or the court.” 14 See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n. 3. Here, the court finds that plaintiff’s cases fall under both 15 categories. 16 A. Frivolousness. 17 Plaintiff’s actions are both numerous and patently without merit. See Molski, 500 F.3d at 18 1059. The complaints filed in the approximately 70 cases listed above are virtually identical and 19 extremely voluminous, with some complaints approaching 400 pages in length. Although plaintiff 20 has named, in total, more than one thousand defendants from around the world, she has never 21 plausibly alleged any unlawful conduct by any defendant. For example, the named defendant in 22 the instant case, Helen Keller, died more than 50 years ago. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). 23 The voluminous factual allegations in the Complaint, to the extent they are intelligible, are 24 identical to those from dozens of plaintiff’s prior actions, and based almost entirely on religion and 25 world history. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendants were engaged in “charades of 26 witchcraft,” decided to go “against God[,]” engaged in idolatry and organized crime, used religion 27 and government as a weapon to wage many different forms of warfare, created technology as a 28 mind-controlling agent, and engaged in human trafficking. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ECF 218-20, 1 290-92). Plaintiff also alleges defendants have consumed much time, energy, and resources all 2 for self-gain, without caring about who has helped them get to where they are. (See id. at ECF 3 305-98). Finally, the Complaint includes dozens of pages of irrelevant matters such as Wikipedia 4 entries, song lyrics, maps, medical records, and illustrations. (See id. at ECF 231-90). 5 As to legal relief, plaintiff seeks, among other things, the abolition of technology, an order 6 that all real estate companies turn over their records to be reviewed for fraud, and an order 7 shutting down all churches. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ECF 399-406). She also requests that 8 infiltrators be destroyed, and that all officials who obstruct justice be reprimanded. (See id. at ECF 9 401). 10 These cases show that plaintiff has had, in a short period, more than 70 actions dismissed 11 because they were patently frivolous. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., [12] 705 F.2d 1515, 1523, 1526 (9th Cir. 1983) (35 prior actions qualified as sufficiently inordinate). 13 Thus, the court makes a substantive finding of frivolousness. 14 B. Harassment. 15 Although it is unnecessary to make an alternative finding of harassment, the court 16 nonetheless finds that the scope and extent of plaintiff’s actions reflect an intent to harass the 17 court. Despite the court warning plaintiff on dozens of prior occasions that her actions were 18 frivolous and improper, plaintiff has continued to file, with almost no interruption, voluminous 19 complaints with patently frivolous allegations. Plaintiff’s insistence, while undoubtedly knowing the 20 court will dismiss her cases as frivolous, on continuing to file actions that raise the same 21 allegations, raises a reasonable inference of an intent to harass the court. See De Long, 912 F.2d 22 at 1148 n. 3. Thus, the court makes a substantive finding of harassment. 23 IV. NARROW TAILORING OF THE ORDER. 24 “Finally, pre-filing orders must be narrowly tailored to the vexatious litigant’s wrongful 25 behavior.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1066 (internal quotation marks omitted). It should 26 “cover[] only the type of claims [the litigant] had been filing vexatiously[.]” Molski, 500 F.3d at 27 1061. [28] 1 Here, if plaintiff is designated as a vexatious litigant, the pre-filing order will provide that the 2 court will not accept any filings from her that are duplicative or frivolous, as her litigation history 3 reflects. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1066 (noting that an order that would prevent filings 4 that are "not duplicative, and not frivolous" would be sufficiently narrowly tailored). Filings that do 5 not qualify as duplicative or frivolous will be accepted for filing. Thus, the pre-filing order “will not 6 deny [plaintiff] access to courts on any . . . claim that is not frivolous[.]” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061 . 7 CONCLUSION 8 This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 9 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 10 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff Victoria Tenisha Shanae Dillihunt is ORDERED TO SHOW 11 CAUSE why the court should not designate her a vexatious litigant in light of her litigation history. 12 If plaintiff objects to being designated a vexatious litigant, she shall file a written response to this 13 Order to Show Cause no later than October 21, 2024. The Order to Show Cause will stand 14 submitted upon the filing of plaintiff’s response. Failure to submit a response by the deadline set 15 forth above shall be deemed as consent to plaintiff being designated as a vexatious litigant. 16 Dated this 4th day of October, 2024. [17] 18 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 19 United States District Judge