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
Solar 