Clancy v. Mancuso

Background

Norman Clancy, who was representing himself, filed the present federal action against Jerry Mancuso, Gerald Bittner, and Keith Cooper concerning dental services. The court described this as the third federal action and sixth action overall that Clancy had filed against these defendants regarding those services.

The court summarized six actions. The first federal action alleged violations of a federal criminal assault statute and state-law claims, including malpractice, tort, and breach of contract; it was dismissed for failure to complete service and failure to prosecute. The second federal action arose from the same alleged facts and was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Clancy had not provided evidence supporting his claimed New York citizenship. Clancy voluntarily dismissed a state action against Bittner after Bittner filed a demurrer, meaning a pleading challenging the legal sufficiency of the claims. In another state action against Cooper, the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. The court also described another state action against Mancuso and Cooper as based on identical allegations and claims.

In the present action, filed on April 18, 2022, Clancy asserted one claim under the federal mail-fraud statute. He voluntarily dismissed Bittner, and the court dismissed Mancuso and Cooper because that criminal statute does not create a private right to sue. Mancuso then moved for an order declaring Clancy a vexatious litigant and requiring pre-filing review of future lawsuits against the defendants.

Legal standard

The court explained that the All Writs Act gives federal district courts authority to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Such orders restrict access to the courts and therefore should be used rarely. Before imposing one, the court must provide notice and an opportunity to oppose it, create an adequate record of the relevant litigation, make substantive findings that the litigation was frivolous or harassing, and narrowly tailor the order to the specific misconduct.

Discussion

The court found that Clancy received notice and an opportunity to respond because it mailed him an order to show cause. Clancy did not respond. The court also found that the record was adequate because it identified and summarized the six lawsuits, including their allegations and dispositions.

The court concluded that Clancy’s litigation history supported a pre-filing review requirement. It emphasized that six lawsuits arose from the same factual basis, that large portions of later complaints were copied from earlier complaints, and that five of the six suits had been dismissed. The court also concluded that Clancy’s repeated filings were intended to harass Mancuso, Bittner, and Cooper, and that the litigation imposed unnecessary costs on the defendants and burdens on the courts. The court considered monetary sanctions but found that they might not deter future filings and would require additional judicial resources.

The court took account of Clancy’s lack of a lawyer and stated that pre-filing orders against self-represented plaintiffs require particular caution. It nevertheless found that the duplicative and harassing nature of the filings justified the restriction.

Order and disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Mancuso’s motion. The court declared Norman Clancy a vexatious litigant and ordered that he obtain leave of court before filing any complaint alleging claims against Jerry Mancuso, Gerald Bittner, and/or Keith Cooper arising from dental services they provided to him. The Clerk of Court was directed not to accept such a complaint for filing and instead to forward it to the general duty judge for pre-filing screening.

The restriction applies to complaints Clancy seeks to file in the Northern District of California, complaints filed in state court and removed to that district, and complaints filed in adversary proceedings in that district’s bankruptcy court. The order terminated ECF 21, Mancuso’s motion. The court also dismissed this action with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered after the order.