Jones v. Kenzo

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE — 7 — CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01208-JHC — 8 — Plaintiff, NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR — 9 — ORDER AGAINST VEXATIOUS v. LITIGANT AND ORDER TO SHOW — 10 — CAUSE WILLIAM KENZO, — 11 — Defendant. — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — I — 15 — INTRODUCTION — 16 — This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. It has come to the Court’s — 17 — attention that pro se Plaintiff Cortez Jones has recently filed 57 civil lawsuits in the Western — 18 — District of Washington, including the present action. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff — 19 — Jones to show cause within 21 days why it should not enter a vexatious litigant and standing bar — 20 — order against him as described below. — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 II 2 BACKGROUND 3 Below is a list of the cases Jones recently filed in this District, as of the drafting of this 4 order: 5 1. Jones v. General Services Administration, Case No. 23-1148-JCC: Jones alleges that the 6 General Administration Services discriminated against him and failed to return his 7 property, causing him $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in 8 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. 9 Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report 10 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. 11 On August 25, 2023, Judge Coughenour adopted the Report and Recommendation and 12 denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 8. 13 2. Jones v. Fidelity Investments, Case No. 23-1149-LK: Jones alleges that Fidelity 14 Investments deprived him of access to his funds, resulting in more than $12 billion in 15 damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 16 that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United 17 States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 18 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an 19 amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. 20 On August 21, 2023, Judge King deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and 21 Recommendation in light of Jones’s amended IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 22 3. Jones v. King County Sheriff et al., Case No. 23-1150-JNW: Jones alleges that the King 23 County Courthouse, King County Judges, “the residence at Rainier Square,” the City of — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 Seattle, Bruce Harrell, and Fidelity Investments discriminated against him and stole 2 multiple business and corporations from him. He alleges $964,000,000,000,000.00 in 3 damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 4 that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United 5 States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 6 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an 7 amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. 8 The IFP application is currently pending. 9 4. Jones v. United States Postal Service et al., Case No. 23-1151-RAJ: Jones alleges that 10 “stolen property” led to injuries and hardship regarding his work life, resulting in $500 11 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 12 IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, 13 United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation 14 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under — 15 — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the 16 Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 17 5. Jones v. King County Courthouse, Case No. 23-1152-LK: Jones alleges that King County 18 Courthouse stole property from him, resulting in more than $20 trillion in damages. 19 Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total 20 net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States 21 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 22 Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 21, 2023, Judge King 23 deferred ruling on Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation in light of Jones’ — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 amended IFP application in another case, where he indicated that he could not afford to 2 pay the filing fee. Dkt. # 7. 3 6. Jones v. Harrell et al., Case No 23-1153-RSM: Jones alleges that the City of Seattle, its 4 police, and its mayor stole his identity and property, resulting in $20 trillion in damages. 5 Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total 6 net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States 7 Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 8 Jones’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 9 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application 10 indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 8. On August 21, 2023, Judge 11 Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP 12 applications. Dkt. # 10. 13 7. Jones v. University of Washington Medicine, Case No. 23-1154-TL: Jones alleges that 14 University of Washington doctors committed medical malpractice leading to the 15 wrongful death of Patricia Paramore. He seeks “twenty trillion eight hundred million” 16 dollars in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, 17 stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On 18 August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and 19 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On 20 August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net 21 monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 9. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge 22 Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 Judge screen the matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted. Dkt. # 11. 3 8. Jones v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Case No. 23-1162-RSM: Jones alleges that 4 the Drug Enforcement Administration stole his identity and paid for murder, with 5 references to freemasonry and the Italian mafia, resulting in over $20 trillion in damages. 6 Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he had 7 received at least $324,000 in the past twelve months, and owns $324,000 in stocks. Dkt. 8 # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and 9 Recommendation recommending that Jones’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On 10 August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net 11 monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the 12 Report and recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 9. 13 9. Jones v. Sawant, Case No. 23-1163-RSL: Jones alleges that Seattle City Councilmember 14 Kshama Sawant worked with “Halal Guy owners” and Washington Attorney General 15 Robert Ferguson to “run [a] terrorist business” against him. Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks 16 damages of $20 trillion for “attempted murder,” $30 trillion for “terrorist act” violations, 17 and $500 million for “gangstalking.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma 18 pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 19 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and 20 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On 21 August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net 22 monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peterson issued 23 a second Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 denied, noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent 2 with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this 3 Court.” Dkt. # 11. 4 10. Jones v. United States Military et al., Case No. 23-1164-TL: Jones alleges that Mike 5 Chapman, Dennis Lemma, University of Washington Medicine, and “Major Sheriff 6 County” are members of a terrorist organization and that they stole his property, forged 7 his signature, and stole his identity. He seeks $9610 trillion in damages. On August 8, 8 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation 9 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under — 10 — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. 11 11. Jones v. Wheat et al., Case No. 23-1165-RSL: Jones names the University of Washington 12 Harborview Medical Center and two of its employees, Stefan K. Wheat and Lorenzo 13 Gonzalez, in his suit seeking $21 billion dollars “for life threatening injuries not cared for 14 however charged by the hospital and false eval massive concussion due to jumping & 15 stabbing.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on 16 his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 17 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation 18 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, 19 Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was 20 $0. Dkt. # 6. On August 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a 21 second Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the 22 matter to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted. Dkt. # 8. — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 12. Jones v. United States Military et al., Case No. 23-1166-JHC: Jones alleges that U.S. 2 Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, and Bob Ferguson worked with attorneys to 3 lie about his identity. Jones also alleges that University of Washington worked with US 4 Senators to wire Google AdSense money into the banks of Mike Chapman, Kenneth 5 McGraw, and Dennis Lemma. He seeks $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his 6 complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was 7 $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson 8 issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be 9 denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP application 10 indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 30, 2023, Judge 11 Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. 12 Dkt. # 9. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a second 13 Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s second IFP application be 14 denied, stating, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s amended IFP application is 15 inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently 16 filed in this Court, including his previous IFP application in this case.” Dkt. # 11. On 17 August 31, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 18 Plaintiff’s second IFP application. Dkt. # 12. 19 13. Jones v. United States Courthouse et al., Case No. 23-1167-SAB: Jones alleges that 20 several United States Magistrate Judges and District Judges committed attempted murder 21 via robbery. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 22 that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United 23 States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. 3 14. Jones v. Davis Law Group et al., Case No. 23-1168-JHC: Jones alleges that “US 4 attorneys – Ann Davidson,” Davis Law Group, and “US Courthouse” committed 5 discrimination against him, and “neglect w/ help of DEA against Cortez Jones sole 6 investigator on file,” resulting in $450 trillion in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to 7 file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he had received at least 8 $324,000 in the past twelve months, and owns $324,000 in stocks. Dkt. # 1. On August 9 7, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation 10 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. 11 15. Jones v. Pornhub Community, Case No. 23-1169-RAJ: Jones alleges that Pornhub 12 Community stole money from his content and engaged in stalking, resulting in $20 13 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 14 IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, 15 United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation 16 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under — 17 — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. On August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the 18 Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 10. 19 16. Jones v. United States Senators et al., Case No. 23-1170-RSL: Jones seeks damages of 20 $460 trillion from U.S. Senator Patty Murray for a variety of claims, including attempted 21 murder. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that 22 his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 3, 2023, United States 23 Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an 2 amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. 3 On August 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a second Report and 4 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s amended IFP application be denied, 5 noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that 6 contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 7 11. 8 17. Jones v. King County Jail et al., Case No. 23-1182-JCC: Jones alleges “discrimination” 9 and “terrorism through a jail on multiple occasions” by King County Jail, Snohomish 10 County Jail, and SCORE Jail. Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks “thirteen billion seven hundred 11 million dollars” in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, 12 stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On 13 August 11, 2023, Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 14 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 15 18. Jones v. BECU, Case No. 23-1183-JCC: Jones alleges that BECU violated the law “based 16 on banking in America, antitrust & civil rights matters,” causing him $30 million in 17 damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 18 IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 19 2023, Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 20 Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 21 19. Jones v. Sound Transit, Case No. 23-1184-RSM: Jones alleges that he was stabbed by a 22 passenger on sound transit “who did not pay fare” and that “RCW states Sound Transit is 23 liable for any injuries.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net 2 monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate 3 Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP 4 application be denied. Dkt. # 2. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP 5 application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 6 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and 7 Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine 8 whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 9. On 9 August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 10 Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 10. 11 20. Jones v. Gorman, Case No. 23-1185-RSM: Jones alleges that the United States Attorney 12 and the Department of Justice discriminated against him. His statement of claim reads, 13 “RCW states all investigations and compensation cannot be signed by only an attorney.” 14 Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in 15 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. 16 Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report 17 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and 18 recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, 19 Jones filed an amended IFP application indicating that his total net monthly salary was 20 $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 2023, Judge Martinez adopted the Report and 21 Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt # 9. 22 21. Jones v. Harborview Medical Center et al., Case No. 23-1186-JLR: Jones alleges that 23 Harborview Medical Center and the University of Washington slandered him and — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 attempted to murder him “via medical malpractice.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his 2 complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was 3 $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan 4 issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be 5 denied. Dkt. # 3. On August 15, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and 6 Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 4. 7 22. Jones v. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 23-1189-RAJ: Jones alleges “stolen 8 property,” “negotiable stolen compensation,” and “EPA cannot sign for anyone else 9 property claim.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief requested is “negotiable.” Id. Jones sought to 10 file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly 11 salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge 12 Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP 13 application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 17, 2023, Jones filed an amended IFP 14 application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 21, 15 2023, Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and Recommendation 16 recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine whether the 17 complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 8. 18 23. Jones v. Seattle Times, Case No. 23-1190-TL: Jones alleges that the Seattle Times 19 slandered, defamed, and attempted to murder him. The relief requested is “negotiable.” 20 Dkt. # 1-1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report 21 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and 22 recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 24. Jones v. Edmonds Police, Case No. 23-1194-JLR: Jones alleges that the Edmonds Police 2 committed “Police brutality – Gangstalking turned into murder and robbery.” Dkt. # 1-1. 3 He requests $57 billion (negotiable) in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in 4 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. 5 Dkt. # 1. On August 8, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report 6 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 2. 7 On August 15, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 8 Plaintiff’s IFP motions. Dkt. # 6. On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended IFP 9 application indicating that his total net monthly salary was $0. Dkt. # 7. On August 18, 10 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a second Report and 11 Recommendation recommending that the District Judge screen the matter to determine 12 whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 8. 13 25. Jones v. Department of Justice, Case No. 23-1195-JNW: Jones alleges that the 14 Department of Justice committed civil rights, property, antitrust, and arbitration 15 violations. He does not specify the relief sought. Jones sought to file his complaint in 16 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. 17 Dkt. # 1. On August 11, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report 18 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 19 26. Jones v. Kenzo et al., Case No. 23-1208-JHC: Jones alleges that the William Kenzo 20 Nakamura U.S. Court of Appeals, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Drug 21 Enforcement Administration, and the Central Intelligence Agency committed 22 “Racketeering (robbery out of US government building),” and “stolen property from 23 GSA EPA & fines via the state. William Kenzo Nakamura is fining, printing checks & — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 not informing the claimant.” Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma 2 pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 3 1. On August 11, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and 4 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and 5 recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 30, 2023, 6 Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP 7 application. Dkt. # 7. 8 27. Jones v. Tukwila City Hall, Case No. 23-1211-JHC: Jones alleges that the Tukwila City 9 Hall committed “racketeering” when it discriminated against him. Dkt. # 1-1. He also 10 alleges that the City Hall stole “damage money” from him. Id. He requests “payment of 11 medical bills and & overtime disabilities.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in 12 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. 13 Dkt. # 1. On August 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report 14 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 15 On August 17, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 16 Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 17 28. Jones v. Pichai et al., Case No. 23-1218-JCC: Jones alleges that “Google has Cortez 18 Jones as YouTube content ID owner & the money was paid to someone else – all money 19 acquired belongs to Cortez Jones.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks two hundred million trillion 20 dollars in damages. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on 21 his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 22 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending review under — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR — 1 — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 31, 2023, Judge Coughenour dismissed 2 the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Dkt. 3 # 6. 4 29. Jones v. Paramore, Case No. 23-1223-JHC: Jones alleges that Kevin Bryan Paramore 5 committed “murder” by poisoning a victim. Dkt. # 1-1. In the section of the complaint 6 stating the relief sought, he says that he “claimed due to the death of my mother.” Id. 7 Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total 8 net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2023, United States 9 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 10 Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On August 18, 2023, Judge Chun 11 adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP applications. Dkt. # 12 6. 13 30. Jones v. Beetham Tran Law Firm, Case No. 23-1224-JLR: Jones alleges that Beetham 14 Tran Law Firm “keeps stealing compensation after murders.” Dkt. # 1-1. The relief he 15 requests is “money would suffice the medical bills & insurance my mom would usually 16 cover.” Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 17 that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United 18 States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 19 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied and recommending screening under 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 4. On August 16, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and 21 Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 22 31. Jones v. Triple Canopy Inc., Case No. 23-1225-LK: Jones alleges that Triple Canopy 23 refused him entry into the FBI and DEA, causing $40 million in damages. Jones seeks to — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly 2 salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge 3 Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jones’ IFP 4 application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 5 32. Jones v. Campbell et al., Case No. 23-1230-JCC: Jones makes no allegations or claims in 6 his complaint against Frank Campbell, Valentine Campbell, Cyrus Campbell, and Anna 7 Kennedy. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 8 that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2023, United 9 States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 10 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 11 33. Jones v. Nelson et al., Case No. 23-1232-RAJ: Jones alleges that City of Seattle Council 12 members, including Sara Nelson, discriminated against him and committed “racketeering 13 corrupt organization/robbery lost wages.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks damages of three 14 hundred million trillion dollars. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, 15 stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On 16 August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and 17 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On 18 August 30, 2023, Judge Jones adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 19 Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. 20 34. Jones v. Labor Works Industrial Staffing, Case No. 23-1233-JHC: Jones alleges that 21 Labor Works Industrial Staffing committed discrimination and would not allow him to 22 work “based on color & religious views.” Dkt. # 1-1. He requests relief in the form of 23 “medical bills & rent.” Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 his IFP form that his total net monthly salary was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 16, 2 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation 3 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 4 35. Jones v. Tritant et al., Case No. 23-1234-RAJ: Jones alleges that Jean Marie Tritant, who 5 he states owns Pacific Place, committed “robbery of corrupt owner connections.” Dkt. 6 # 1-1. Jones also names as Defendants the City of Seattle, Pacific Place, and Unico 7 Properties, but does not include any allegations regarding these defendants. Id. Jones 8 seeks “two hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in 9 forma pauperis (“IFP”), stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary is 10 $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 15, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. 11 Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP 12 application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 13 36. Jones v. The White House et al., Case No. 23-1262-TL: Jones alleges that the White 14 House, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Steve Ripken 15 discriminated against him. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones states that he “compromised multiple 16 terrorists without the president knowing due to a military robbery,” and that the “White 17 House is comfortable with allowing terrorist[s] to attack” him. Id. Jones seeks “one 18 hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money 20 in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge 21 Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP 22 application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently 2 filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 6. 3 37. Jones v. Central Intelligence Agency et al., Case No. 23-1263-TL: Jones alleges that the 4 Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Army, 5 and the United States Navy committed discrimination, robbery of military artillery and 6 healthcare, racketeering, and civil infractions due to their alleged use of Jones’s “credit to 7 compromise terrorists in our country.” Dkt. 1-1. Jones seeks two hundred septillion 8 dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), stating on his 9 IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve 10 months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Kate Vaughan 11 issued an amended Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP 12 application be denied. Dkt. # 6. 13 38. Jones v. Dubin Law Group et al., Case No. 23-1269-JHC: Jones alleges that Dubin Law 14 Group, Lisa O’Toole, “4th & Blanchard,” and Seattle Litigations Group robbed him via 15 forged signature and attempted to murder him, resulting in $1 billion in damages. Jones 16 sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not 17 employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On 18 August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and 19 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, noting, “the 20 information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in 21 numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. On 22 August 31, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 23 Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 39. Jones v. Alway et al., Case No. 23-1283-TL: Jones alleges that Donald Alway stalked 2 him, robbed him, and discriminated against him, resulting in $2 trillion in damages. 3 Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not 4 employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On 5 August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and 6 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 3. 7 40. Jones v. Port of Seattle et al., Case No. 23-1284-JNW: Jones alleges that the Port of 8 Seattle Police, the Seattle Police, and City of Seattle City Hall discriminated against him 9 and committed “terrorism to cover corruption.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks forty trillion dollars 10 in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP 11 form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. 12 Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report 13 and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 14 41. Jones v. Seetoo et al., Case No. 23-1285-RSM: Jones alleges that Jennifer Seetoo, station 15 captain of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Calabassas Police in 16 California, Donald Alway, the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI field 17 office, and the Los Angeles California FBI robbed him. Dkt. # 1-1. His requested relief 18 is “twenty trillion dollars” with interest of 30%. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in 19 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is unemployed and has received no 20 money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 29, 2023, Judge Martinez 21 dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) for failing to state a claim to relief that is 22 plausible on its face and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) for bringing the case in the wrong 23 venue. Dkt. # 3. — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 42. Jones v. Lil Uzi Vert, Case No. 23-1286-JNW: Jones alleges that Lil Uzi Vert committed 2 robbery in connection with his record label. He seeks twenty trillion dollars in damages. 3 Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is 4 unemployed and has received no money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 5 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation 6 recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information 7 provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous 8 other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 4. 9 43. Jones v. SCORE Jail et al., Case No. 23-1287-JLR: Jones alleges that the SCORE Jail in 10 Seatac incorrectly assigned his housing placement during incarceration and deprivation of 11 adequate recreation time. He does not specify the relief requested. Jones sought to file 12 his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary 13 was $35,000.00. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson 14 issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be 15 denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent 16 with that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this 17 Court, including applications contemporaneously filed with this action.” Dkt. # 6. On 18 August 30, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied 19 Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 7. 20 44. Jones v. Facebook et al., Case No. 23-1288-JCC: Jones alleges that Facebook plans to 21 control him using AI and seeks one hundred million trillion dollars in damages. Jones 22 sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not 23 employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 August 23, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and 2 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. On 3 August 25, 2023, Judge Coughenour adopted the Report and Recommendation and 4 denied Jones’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 5 45. Jones v. Seattle Talent Agency, Case No. 23-1289-JLR: Jones alleges that Seattle Talent 6 Agency forged his signature, causing him $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file 7 his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that his total net monthly salary 8 is $0. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a 9 Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, 10 and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with 11 that contained in numerous other IFP applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” 12 Dkt. # 6. On August 30, 2023, Judge Robart adopted the Report and Recommendation 13 and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 7. 14 46. Jones v. Rolling Loud, Case No. 23-1290-TL: Jones alleges that The Rolling Loud 15 committed robbery, terrorism, cyber hacking, discrimination, and deprivation. Dkt. # 116 1. He seeks one hundred million trillion dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his 17 complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is unemployed and has 18 received no money in the past twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United 19 States Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 20 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in 21 Plaintiff’s IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP 22 applications Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 47. Jones v. Burien Nissan et al., Case No. 23-1291-JCC: Jones alleges that Burien Nissan 2 committed “470 – Burien Nissan Robbery & Terrorist Group of Cortez Daundre Jones 3 After Running Human Trafficking/Gangstalking.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks twenty trillion 4 dollars in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 5 IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve 6 months. Dkt. # 1. The IFP application is currently pending. 7 48. Jones v. Alphabet Inc. et al., Case No. 23-1292-RSL: Jones alleges that “David Tepper of 8 Google” has stolen trillions of dollars from him.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks “2 billion 400 9 hundred million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in 10 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any 11 money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States 12 Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 13 plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, noting that “information provided in Plaintiff’s IFP 14 application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications 15 Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. 16 49. Jones v. Federal Bureau of Investigations et al., Case No. 23-1294-TL: Jones alleges that 17 the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Donald Alway, and Richard Collidi committed 18 robbery and discrimination, and that they “close all deals using Cortez Daundre Jones 19 credit while hiding the identity behind the actual investigator.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks 20 “1600 one billion 600 million trillion dollars” in damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his 21 complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not 22 received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 2 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 4. 3 50. Jones v. Snohomish County Jail, Case No. 23-1295-RAJ: Jones alleges that the 4 Snohomish County jail has not been investigated for accepting payment from the FBI to 5 arrest him. He seeks forty trillion dollars in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint 6 in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received 7 any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 25, 2023, Judge Jones 8 dismissed the case sua sponte for failing to state a claim. Dkt. # 4. 9 51. Jones v. O’Toole et al., Case No. 23-1296-JHC: Jones alleges that Judge Lisa O’Toole 10 has helped multiple companies use hackers to rob Jones in exchange for money and credit 11 for prosecutions at the district court King County Court House, causing him $100 million 12 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 13 IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve 14 months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued 15 a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. 16 Dkt. # 4. On August 25, 2023, Judge Chun adopted the Report and Recommendation and 17 denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 5. 18 52. Jones v. Microsoft Corporation et al., Case No. 23-1297-JHC: Jones alleges that 19 Microsoft Corporation, Satya Nadella, Bill Gates, and Bob Ferguson committed “47020 Robbery & terrorism by park web hacker group at 4th Blanchard building in Seattle 21 WA,” resulting in $100 trillion in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. Jones sought to file his 22 complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not 23 received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 24, 2023, United — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 2 that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. On August 25, Judge Chun adopted 3 the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 6. 4 53. Jones v. Versace et al., Case No. 23-1298-JNW: Jones alleges robbery via models in 5 connection to Versace against Versace, Alexander Wang, Vivian Wang, and Dubin Law 6 Group. He seeks “twenty trillion dollars” and “30% interest” in damages. Dkt. # 1-1. 7 Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not 8 employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. The IFP 9 application is currently pending. 10 54. Jones v. Wang et al., Case No. 23-1299-JHC: Jones alleges that Alexander Wang, 11 Versace, and another illegible defendant committed “470 – Robbery via Alexander Wang 12 Connections,” resulting in $20 trillion in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in 13 forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any 14 money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 1. On August 30, 2023, United States 15 Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 16 Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and noting, “the information provided in Plaintiff’s 17 IFP application is inconsistent with that contained in numerous other IFP applications 18 Plaintiff recently filed in this Court.” Dkt. # 5. On August 31, 2023, Judge Chun 19 adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. # 20 6. 21 55. Jones v. Washington State Department of Revenue et al., Case No. 23-1300-JCC: Jones 22 alleges “Martin Selig robbery via Washington State Department of Revenue & Newmark 23 of Cortez Daundre Jones via Microsoft Corp & real estate connections to US Bank — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 Centre.” Dkt. # 1-1. He seeks either two hundred trillion or one trillion dollars in 2 damages. Id. Jones seeks to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 3 that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 4 1. The IFP application is currently pending. 5 56. Jones v. Seattle City Hall et al., Case No. 23-1301-RAJ: Jones alleges that “Seattle City 6 Hall works with Satya Nadella & Ferguson” to rob him. Dkt. # 1-1. He does not specify 7 the relief sought. Id. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his 8 IFP form that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve 9 months. Dkt. # 1. On August 29, 2023, Judge Jones dismissed the case sua sponte for 10 failing to state a claim. Dkt. # 5. 11 57. Jones v. Ferguson et al., Case No. 23-1302-RSM: Jones alleges that Washington 12 Attorney General Bob Ferguson as well as Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and others, 13 caused his homeless or robbed him via a casino, resulting in two hundred trillion dollars 14 in damages. Jones sought to file his complaint in forma pauperis, stating on his IFP form 15 that he is not employed and has not received any money in the last twelve months. Dkt. # 16 1. On August 31, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Vaughan issued a Report and 17 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied. Dkt. # 5. — 18 — 19 On August 30, 2023, Jones filed a single “Objections” document in all 57 of his cases, 20 stating, “all IFP have been edited to explain the income reported was in fact income that was not 21 reported via taxes and income from investments that have not been made available to 22 spend…Even though I have made money on investment [sic] not all of the funds were made 23 available after the account was closed and Fidelity Investments did not provide a proper fraud — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 investigation…” See, e.g., Case No. 23-2269-RAJ at Dkt. # 9. Various judges have addressed 2 these objections, either by construing them as motions for reconsideration and denying them, see, 3 e.g., Jones v. Gorman, Case No. 23-1185-RSM at Dkt. # 11, or striking them as procedurally 4 improper, see, e.g., Jones v. Seattle Talent Agency, Case No. 23-1289-JLR at Dkt. # 5. 5 III 6 DISCUSSION 7 The All Writs Acts, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a), provides district courts with the inherent power 8 to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 9 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Under the power of 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a), enjoining litigants 10 with abusive and lengthy histories is one such form of restriction that the district court may 11 take.”). Although such orders should be used sparingly, “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process 12 cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that 13 properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v. 14 Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 In the Ninth Circuit, a vexatious litigant order may be entered when (1) the litigant has 16 received notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered, (2) there is an adequate 17 record for review, (3) the litigant’s actions are frivolous or harassing, and (4) the vexatious 18 litigant order is “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” De Long, 912 19 F.2d at 1147-48; Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. 20 The first two factors are procedural, while the “latter two factors ... are substantive 21 considerations ... [that] help the district court define who is, in fact, a ‘vexatious litigant’ and 22 construct a remedy that will stop the litigant’s abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the 23 litigant’s right to access the courts.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 A. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard 2 The first factor requires that an individual has fair notice of the possibility that they may 3 be declared a vexatious litigant, and further, that they be given an opportunity to oppose the 4 order before it is entered. Id. at 1147, 1058. This does not require the court to hold an in-person 5 hearing, as “’the opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements.’” Reddy 6 v. MedQuist, Inc., No. 12-cv-1324-PSG, 2012 WL 6020010 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) 7 (quoting Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058); see Gavin v. City & Cty. of S.F., No. 15-CV-05202-EMC, — 8 — 2016 WL 126937 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (holding opportunity to file a written 9 opposition satisfies first De Long factor; collecting cases). Here, the first factor is met because, 10 through this order, Jones has received notice and an opportunity to submit a written response 11 before a pre-filing order is potentially entered against him. 12 B. Adequate Record for Review 13 An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that 14 lead the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order is needed. De Long, 912 F.2d at 15 1147 (citing Martin–Trigona v. Lavien, 737 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir. 1984)). At a minimum, the 16 record should show that the litigant’s activities are numerous or abusive. De Long, 912 F.2d at 17 1147. This factor is met because the Court has chronicled and described all the actions—57 in 18 total—that Jones has filed in this District. 19 C. Frivolous or Harassing Filings 20 The third De Long factor “gets to the heart of the vexatious litigant analysis,” see Molski, 21 500 F.3d at 1059, and requires the district court to look to “both the number and content of the 22 filings as indicia” of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims, De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 . “An — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not 2 only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059. 3 Because this factor requires substantive consideration, courts look toward a separate set 4 of considerations that provide a “helpful framework”: 5 (1) the litigant’s history of litigation, and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing 6 the litigation, in other words, whether the litigant has an objective good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) 7 whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other 8 sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties. 9 Id. at 1058. These five substantive factors help determine whether a party is a vexatious litigant 10 and, if so, the sanction that is required to stop the vexatious litigation. Id. (citing Safir v. U.S. 11 Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 , 24 (2nd Cir. 1986)). The final consideration—whether other remedies 12 would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties—is particularly important. Ringgold 13 Lockhart v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). 14 Jones’s previous filings demonstrate that he is a vexatious litigant. First, Jones has filed 15 numerous actions, and several have been dismissed for failing to state a claim. See Johns v. Los 16 Gatos, 834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (entering vexatious litigant order against a 17 plaintiff who had filed five similar actions over a period of ten years). Second, he has identified 18 no viable legal theory in support of his numerous claims. Third, Jones has filed all his claims as 19 a pro se litigant, meaning that he has never been represented by counsel. Fourth, he has filed IFP 20 applications for all of his claims, using the Court’s limited resources to bring his claims. 21 Additionally, his lawsuits have placed an unwarranted burden on the District and followed a 22 pattern: He initially filed IFP applications stating that his income was $35,000.00 a month. 23 Following denials of these applications, he began filing supplemental IFP applications claiming — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR 1 no income or assets. Additionally, since August 18, 2023, all his IFP applications claim no 2 income or assets. Finally, other sanctions, such as monetary fines, would be overly punitive and 3 not dissuade Jones from continued filings given that his IFP requests have shown that he likely 4 has limited financial resources. 5 Thus, Jones has filed multiple lawsuits, all of which are frivolous or fantastical, legally 6 unsupported, and imposing substantial cost to the courts. 7 D. Narrowly Tailored 8 The fourth and final factor requires that the pre-filing order be narrowly tailored to the 9 vexatious litigant’s wrongful behavior. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. “Narrowly tailored orders are 10 needed ‘to prevent infringement of the litigator’s right of access to the courts.”’ De Long, 912 11 F.2d at 1148 (citing Sires v. Gabriel, 748 F.2d 49, 51 (1st Cir. 1984)). The pre-filing restriction 12 must fit the plaintiff’s specific practices. See, e.g., Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Com., 13 Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1525 (9th Cir. 1983) (the injunction must describe in reasonable detail the 14 act or acts sought to be restrained). 15 Here, Jones has brought multiple, meritless IFP lawsuits before multiple judges in this 16 District. Thus, the specific vice the Court seeks to address and remedy is the serial filing of 17 facially frivolous or fantastical lawsuits by a pro se litigant. 18 IV 19 ORDER 20 Based on these findings and a thorough review of the record, the Court now ORDERS 21 Plaintiff Jones to SHOW CAUSE why a vexatious litigant bar order should not be issued in this 22 District. Specifically, such a bar order would include the following restrictions: — 23 — — 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR l 1) The Clerk will initially file all Jones’s future pro se complaints and motions for in forma 2 pauperis in a miscellaneous case number specifically designated for this purpose pending 3 the Court’s review of each such complaint and motion.! 4 2) The Clerk will not issue summonses in any pro se action filed by Jones without approval 5 of the Court. 6 3) The Court may dismiss any future pro se complaint and motions for in forma pauperis 7 status upon a finding that the complaint suffers from the same defects outlined above, or 8 others, without issuing an order to show cause. 9 Plaintiff Jones’s Response is due no later than 21 days from the date of this Order and may not exceed 12 pages. No attachments are permitted. Failure to file a response will result in 11 the issuance of the above bar order. 12 Dated this 31st day of August, 2023. Jake Hi. Oban John H. Chun 14 United States District Judge — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — 23 ‘Tf Plaintiff is represented by counsel, then any complaint he files as a represented party may receive a civil number immediately without the need of first filing it under the specially designated miscellaneous case number. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER BAR ORDER AGAINST VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND ORDER TO SHOW