(PS) Greene v. Price Self Storage West LA, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC GREENE, No. 2:22-cv-0524-KJM-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PRICE SELF STORAGE WEST LA, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 18 302(c)(21). On May 4, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 fourteen days. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 21 (ECF No. 6.) The court has reviewed the matter de novo. The findings and recommendations are 22 correct; the court adopts them in full. 23 In Mr. Greene’s objections, he refers to his status as a “vexatious” litigant, and he 24 suggests he filed an action in this court because he would like to avoid a prefiling restriction in 25 the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See id. at 2–3. It is not only 26 that district in which Mr. Greene faces such a restriction. His “extraordinary history and wasteful 27 consumption of judicial resources” has persuaded many, many federal courts to impose prefiling 28 restrictions against him, sometimes even without warning, including federal district courts in 1 Ohio, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Kansas and California, and several United States Courts of 2 Appeals. Greene v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, No. 20-776, 2020 WL 7327532, at *3 (S.D. 3 Ohio Oct. 7, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6498667 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 4 2020), appeal dismissed, No. 20-4242, 2020 WL 9762420 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2020). “Even the 5 United States Supreme Court has called out Plaintiff’s abusive litigation practices and imposed 6 pre-filing restrictions . . . .” Id. (citing In re Greene, 578 U.S. 974 (2016)). 7 It appears Mr. Greene may now have turned his attention to this District. In addition to 8 this case, he also recently filed another action in this court, which was quickly transferred to the 9 Central District of California based on improper venue. See, e.g., Greene v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. 10 & Urban Dev., No. 22-0203 (E.D. Cal. filed Feb. 17, 2022). “Flagrant abuse of the judicial 11 process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that 12 properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v. 13 Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). This court will not permit any further waste of 14 resources. No warning is necessary in this exceptional case. See Greene, 2020 WL 7327532, at 15 *5 (“Plaintiff has demonstrated no willingness or ability to curtail his litigation practices 16 nationwide, other than by searching for a new court to bombard.”). 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2022 (ECF No. 5) are adopted in 19 full. 20 2. This action is dismissed for improper venue. 21 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 23 5. Cedric Greene is declared a “vexatious litigant” under this District’s Local Rules. 24 See E.D. Cal. 151(b). He is enjoined from filing any complaints and from otherwise 25 initiating any new civil case in the United State District Court for the Eastern District 26 of California unless he files a motion for leave to open a new civil action accompanied 27 by the following: 28 a. A copy of this order; ] b. A proposed complaint; 2 c. A declaration signed by an attorney admitted to practice in a federal district 3 court or U.S. state and in good standing in that jurisdiction, attesting that the 4 proposed complaint includes only non-frivolous claims and allegations that 5 satisfy the standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b); and 6 d. Payment in full of the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma 7 pauperis. 8 6. The Clerk of Court is directed not to open any new civil case in plaintiff's name 9 unless he has fully complied with the conditions above. 10 7. The court certifies that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. See 1] 28 US.C. § 1915(a)(3). 12 | DATED: June 28, 2022. 13 14 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28