Remmert v. Stauffer
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-05803
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Shirley V. Remmert v. Josh Stauffer, Judge Gilliam dismissed the action with prejudice under an order restricting her filings and denied pending motions as moot.
The dismissal ended Shirley V. Remmert’s action brought for herself and nominally for Eva D. Al-Zaghari; the court also denied any pending motions as moot and closed the file.
What happened
Shirley V. Remmert, representing herself, sued San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian Vanessa Osuna under a federal civil-rights law. She also identified her daughter, Eva D. Al-Zaghari, as a nominal plaintiff.
Remmert alleged that officials and others conspired to control or enslave her and Eva through conservatorship proceedings, restraining orders, and related state-court actions. She sought to invalidate conservatorship reports and court orders, obtain Eva’s release, and recover damages.
Judge Gilliam ruled that the action was barred by a prior order restricting Remmert’s filings as a vexatious litigant because it concerned Eva’s conservatorship, the restraining orders, and related court proceedings. He dismissed the action with prejudice, denied any pending motions as moot, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Remmert v. Stauffer · No. 4:19-cv-05803
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 13, 2019
Background
Shirley V. Remmert brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaint named San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian Vanessa Osuna as defendants. Remmert brought the action for herself and identified her daughter, Eva D. Al-Zaghari, as a nominal plaintiff. The complaint also named Judge George A. Miriam, Judge Quentin Kopp, and President Donald Trump as interested parties.
The complaint alleged an ongoing conspiracy involving private individuals, state-court judges, and state-agency personnel. According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy involved the conservatorship of Eva and restraining orders preventing Remmert from contacting her. Remmert asserted five causes of action, including alleged violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, fraud on the court, obstruction of justice, and fraud. She sought to void reports concerning Eva’s conservatorship, void probate-court orders authorizing the conservatorship and issuing the restraining orders, obtain Eva’s release, and recover monetary damages.
Prior Filing Restrictions
The court described Remmert’s extensive litigation history. It stated that a prior order declared her a vexatious litigant and barred her from filing complaints, pleadings, or other papers concerning matters including Eva’s conservatorship, the restraining order preventing contact with Eva, and related state-court proceedings unless she first obtained a prefiling order from the court. The opinion also stated that the United States Supreme Court had found that Remmert repeatedly abused its process and imposed requirements on future noncriminal petitions.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court held that this action was barred by the prior vexatious-litigant order because it concerned, and sought relief related to, Eva’s conservatorship, the restraining orders against Remmert, and related court proceedings. The court therefore did not reach the merits of Remmert’s constitutional, fraud, or other allegations. Judge Gilliam dismissed the action with prejudice as barred by the vexatious-litigant order. The court also denied any pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.