Wood v. Contra Costa County

Background

Mary P. Carey moved to dismiss Wood's operative pleading and to have Wood declared a vexatious litigant. The court had already dismissed Wood's and a minor child's claims in an earlier order and deferred ruling on the request for a vexatious-litigant order. This opinion addresses only that remaining request.

Wood alleged claims against Carey and others arising from Contra Costa County child-dependency proceedings and the state court's custody decisions. Carey had represented Wood during part of those proceedings. The court reviewed five actions involving claims against Carey: one state-court professional-negligence case filed while Wood was represented by counsel, followed by four federal complaints filed by Wood without a lawyer. The federal complaints asserted overlapping claims based on the same events, including allegations that Carey blocked evidence, sought limits on visitation, or participated in wrongdoing connected to the dependency proceedings.

The court described the federal actions as follows:

- In the first federal action, Wood voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice while motions to dismiss were pending. - In the second federal action, Wood asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. She voluntarily dismissed that action before the court ruled on the dismissal motions. - In the third federal action, Wood reasserted substantially the same claims. The court dismissed the claims under doctrines that generally prevent federal courts from reviewing state-court decisions or interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The court found the claims meritless but denied a vexatious-litigant request without prejudice. - In the fourth federal action, Wood again asserted related claims, including a racketeering claim. The court dismissed it for the same reasons. - In the present action, Wood asserted a civil-rights claim against Carey based on the same underlying events, but omitted the earlier allegation that Carey conspired with state officials. The court dismissed Wood's claims against Carey because Carey, a private attorney not alleged to have conspired with state officials, was not acting under color of state law as required for liability under § 1983.

Legal Standard

The court explained that federal district courts have inherent authority to issue pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Before doing so, the court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, identify the cases and motions supporting the order, make substantive findings that the litigant's conduct was frivolous or harassing, and narrowly tailor the restrictions to the specific problem.

Court's Analysis

The court found that Carey gave Wood adequate notice of the actions supporting the request. Wood opposed the request and also used an opportunity to file a surreply addressing a new argument in Carey's reply.

Considering both the number and substance of Wood's filings, the court found that the federal actions against Carey were frivolous and reflected a pattern of harassment. The court emphasized that Wood filed four federal complaints against Carey based on the same underlying events and that the first two federal actions were filed while related state proceedings were pending, requiring Carey to defend herself in multiple forums. The court also found that Wood continued filing related claims after the court had found earlier claims meritless.

Disposition

The court granted Carey's request for imposition of a vexatious-litigant order. It declared Andrea Wood a vexatious litigant. The clerk may not file or accept a future complaint from Wood asserting a claim based on Carey's representation of Wood in child-dependency proceedings in the Contra Costa County Superior Court unless the complaint is first reviewed by the general-duty judge.

If Wood seeks to file such a complaint, she must provide the clerk with the complaint, a letter requesting filing, and a copy of the order. The clerk must forward those materials to the general-duty judge, who will decide whether the complaint should be accepted for filing. The court limited the order to claims against Carey arising from Carey's prior representation of Wood in the dependency proceedings.