Page 1 of 4

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

CLIFFORD HACKETT,

CIVIL CASE NO. 23-00003

Plaintiff,

ORDER

VS.

GUAM AGENCY IN VIDEO 1,

Defendant.

Plaintiff has repeatedly filed Complaints before this court that fail to state a claim and/or lacks Article III standing. There are a total of 20 cases filed by Plaintiff that his court dismissed,

this case included.

A vexatious litigant is one with a history of abuses of the judicial process. See De Long v.

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). To prevent the continued abuses, federal courts

have been granted inherent authority to regulate the activities of vexatious litigants through the

imposition of carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate circumstances, such as a pre-filing order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Id. Such restrictions, however, should be used sparingly and only under extreme circumstances. Id. at 1147. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has set forth

the following guidelines before entering a pre-filing order: (a) adequate notice to the plaintiff to

Case 1:23-cv-00003 Document 3 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4

oppose a restrictive pre-filing order before it is entered; (b) presentation by the trial court of an

adequate record for review; (c) substantive findings concerning the frivolous or harassing nature

of the plaintiff’s filings; and (d) a narrow tailoring of the order to remedy the abuses. Id. at 1147-

48.

a. Notice

The court gives notice to Plaintiff that the court intends to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff shall have until June 16, 2023, to respond to this court and explain why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant.

b. Record for Review

Below is a list of cases that Plaintiff had filed in this court, all of which were dismissed.

1. Civil Case No. 16-00001, Hackett v. Red Guahan bus 117 Guerro

2. Civil Case No. 16-00005, Hackett v. PMT (Pacific Micronesia Tours)

3. Civil Case No. 16-00007, Hackett v. Guam Sanko Transportation, Inc.

4. Civil Case No. 16-00008, Hackett v. Japan Bus Lines LLC

5. Civil Case No. 16-00010, Hackett v. GRIA

6. Civil Case No. 16-00011, Hackett v. California Pizza Kitchen

7. Civil Case No. 16-00012, Hackett v. Agana Shopping Center

8. Civil Case No. 20-00001, Hackett v. Law Office Bruce Berline et al

9. Civil Case No. 20-00002, Hackett v. Regal Guam

10. Civil Case No. 20-00021, Hackett v. Barrigada Wendy’s

11. Civil Case No. 20-00022, Hackett v. grta.gov

12. Civil Case No. 23-00003, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video I

13. Civil Case No. 23-00004, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 2

14. Civil Case No. 23-00005, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 3

Case 1:23-CV-00003 Document 3 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4

15. Civil Case No. 23-00006, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 4

16. Civil Case No. 23-00007, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 5

17. Civil Case No. 23-00008, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 6

18. Civil Case No. 23-00009, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 7

19. Civil Case No. 23-00010, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 8

20. Civil Case No. 23-00011, Hackett v. Guam Agency in Video 9

c. Frivolous or Harassing Filings

The third factor requires substantive findings concerning the frivolous or harassing nature

of the plaintiff’s filings. "To determine whether a litigant’s actions are frivolous or harassing, the district court must look at both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the

frivolousness of the litigant’s claims." Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "An injunction cannot issue merely upon

a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit." Id.

Here, Plaintiff has filed a total of 20 cases in the District Court of Guam. All of them are nearly identical, lacking any specific facts that would establish standing despite this court having

told Plaintiff in previous cases what is needed to establish standing and allowing Plaintiff leave

18

to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff simply continues to ignore the court’s rulings and simply just

19

files a similar complaint, but with just a different named defendant.

20

d. Narrowly Tailored Order

21

Given Plaintiff’s history of filing meritless claims against various defendants, the court is

22

inclined to enjoin Plaintiff from filing any complaint, motion, or other document in the District

23

Court of Guam against any defendants unless and until such a filing is first approved by this

24

court. As noted above, the court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard through his

Case 1:23-cv-00003 Document 3 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4

pleading, which shall be filed no later than June 16, 2023. Thereafter, the court will then make its final ruling whether it will declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

SO ORDERED.

Is/ Frances M. Tyingco-Gatewood

Chief Judge

Dated: May 17, 2023

C cover

Case 1:23-cv-00003 Document 3 Filed 05/17/23 Page 4