Spitters v. Estate of Mary Ann Spitters
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-00629
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Spitters v. Estate of Mary Ann Spitters, Judge Donato dismissed the case without prejudice, declined pre-filing screening, and required notice of new cases.
Thomas Heaton Spitters, whose case was dismissed without prejudice and who was required to notify the court of any new action he initiated in the district through December 31, 2020; the Estate of Mary Ann Spitters was the named defendant.
What happened
In Spitters v. Estate of Mary Ann Spitters, the court reviewed a recommendation to dismiss the case, declare Thomas Heaton Spitters a vexatious litigant, and require court permission before he filed more cases in the district. Spitters filed a response.
The court adopted the recommendation in part and dismissed the case without prejudice for failing to state a claim. This means the dismissal did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe what claim Spitters intended to bring.
Judge James Donato declined to declare Spitters a vexatious litigant or impose a pre-filing screening order at that time. Instead, the court required Spitters to notify the court of any new action he started in the district through December 31, 2020, and said it could reconsider a screening order later.
The detailed version
- Spitters v. Estate of Mary Ann Spitters · No. 3:19-cv-00629
- James Donato
- Apr. 4, 2020
Background
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case, declaring Thomas Heaton Spitters a vexatious litigant, and entering a pre-filing order. Such an order would have required Spitters to obtain permission before filing additional suits against any defendants in the Northern District of California. Spitters filed a response to the recommendation.
Dismissal
The court adopted the recommendation in part. It agreed that dismissal for failure to state a claim was well-supported and dismissed the case without prejudice. The opinion does not identify the underlying claim or explain what pleading defect caused the dismissal.
Vexatious-litigant and pre-filing issues
The court declined to impose a vexatious-litigant designation or pre-filing screening order at that time. It acknowledged that Spitters had filed several frivolous complaints and had not followed the orders dismissing those cases. But the record showed that he had almost completely stopped filing new cases, and it appeared that none of his cases had been served on a defendant. The court therefore found that the current record did not justify restricting access to the courts through a pre-filing order.
The court explained that federal district courts have authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Before entering such an order, the Ninth Circuit requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, an adequate record, findings about frivolous or harassing litigation, and a narrowly tailored order. The court also considered factors including the litigant’s filing history, litigation motive, representation by counsel, burdens imposed on courts or other parties, and whether other sanctions would be sufficient.
Notice requirement and disposition
Although it declined the requested designation and screening order, the court required Spitters to file notice in this case of any action he initiated in the district between the date of the order and December 31, 2020. The court stated that failure to comply would be considered in later vexatious-litigant proceedings and that it could revisit whether a pre-filing order was appropriate. Judge James Donato ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice and that the vexatious-litigant and pre-filing screening order be declined at that time.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.