Olajide v. State of California

Background

Oladapo Olajide, who represented himself, sued the State of California and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for what he described as a “fraudulent violation of civil rights.” He also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and asked the court to declare Olajide a vexatious litigant.

Claims and dismissal analysis

The court said the complaint was very difficult to understand. Construing it broadly, the court identified two possible claims: a California fraudulent-misrepresentation claim based on a statement on the Attorney General’s website about “strong and vigorous enforcement” of civil-rights laws, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Becerra deprived Olajide of private-property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court held that the misrepresentation claim failed because Olajide did not explain how the website statement was false. He also did not allege that Becerra knew the statement was false, made it intending to induce reliance, or caused him damage. The Section 1983 claim also failed because the complaint did not identify specific conduct by the State or Becerra that deprived Olajide of a federal right, or explain how his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.

Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, this court had already given Olajide an opportunity at the hearing to explain his claims. The court found his allegations frivolous and fanciful and dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Preliminary injunction

The court denied Olajide’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction requires, among other things, a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Because the complaint failed to state a claim, the court found that Olajide had not shown a likelihood of success and did not address the other requirements.

Vexatious-litigant ruling

The court took judicial notice of several prior court orders and found an adequate record to review the defendants’ request. Counting the current case, the court found that Olajide had filed at least eight unsuccessful lawsuits in the Northern District of California since 2016, including at least five against the governor of California, and had also filed a similar unsuccessful case in the Eastern District of California. The court found that the prior cases had been dismissed at the pleading stage and that multiple courts had described his allegations as frivolous, fanciful, vague, rambling, or incomprehensible.

The court granted the motion to declare Olajide a vexatious litigant and imposed a limited pre-filing restriction. Olajide is enjoined from filing a civil action in the Northern District of California against the State of California, the governor of California, or the California Attorney General without first obtaining certification from the general duty judge that the complaint plausibly states claims for relief and is not frivolous or fanciful. The restriction does not bar him from filing cases in that district altogether, but the Clerk must send any proposed filing covered by the order to the general duty judge for review. A violation may result in a contempt hearing, sanctions, and dismissal of the action.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Olajide’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. The defendants’ motion to declare him a vexatious litigant was granted, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.