Bethea Parsons v. Robert C. Brower Tom Moss Cindy Campbell David Parmenter Leroy R. Nelson
Docket: 94-35626
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 28, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 states that non-published dispositions are not precedential and may only be cited under specific legal doctrines. In the case of Bethea Parsons v. Robert C. Brower et al. (No. 94-35626), Bethea Parsons appeals the dismissal of her action against multiple Idaho state officials and the imposition of a pre-filing order against her and her husband. The appeal is rooted in a prior state criminal action for trespass related to a property foreclosure due to unpaid taxes. Parsons asserts she was falsely charged and denied constitutional relief by state judges.
The district court dismissed her claims, noting her history of at least 17 prior lawsuits connected to the foreclosure. It subsequently required Parsons to show cause why a pre-filing order limiting her ability to file similar suits should not be imposed. Following her response, the court prohibited her and her family from filing related civil actions without court permission. Robert Parsons, although not a party, also appealed.
The Circuit Court reviews the summary judgment de novo, while pre-filing orders are assessed for abuse of discretion. Parsons claims the district court wrongly concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. The court dismisses her argument, clarifying that these sections do not provide independent federal jurisdiction but only outline remedies.
Federal district courts lack jurisdiction over direct challenges to final state court decisions and claims that are closely tied to those decisions, as established in *District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman* and reiterated in *Worldwide Church of God v. McNair*. This includes challenges based on alleged violations of due process and equal protection, which must first exhaust state appeals, with the option to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Parsons' complaint against her public defender and Idaho state officials, alleging conspiracy to file false charges, is considered inextricably intertwined with prior state court proceedings, preventing the district court from adjudicating her claims.
Additionally, for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding actions that invalidate a conviction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conviction has been overturned or invalidated. Parsons has not shown her state conviction was reversed, thus her claims cannot succeed under this statute, leading the district court to grant summary judgment for the defendants.
The district court can impose restrictions on litigants with a history of abusive litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). An order for pre-filing review must provide adequate notice, maintain a sufficient record of prior frivolous actions, substantiate findings of harassment, and be narrowly tailored. The court's order against Bethea Parsons meets these requirements, as she was given notice and the opportunity to contest the order, which detailed her 17 previous frivolous filings. The order restricts her from filing similar claims without court approval and mandates certification of good faith for new claims.
However, the order's application to Robert Parsons is reversed due to a lack of evidence regarding his litigation history and the absence of notice or an opportunity for him to respond. The same considerations apply to other family members of Bethea Parsons.
The district court's pre-filing order is upheld specifically for Bethea Parsons, while it is reversed regarding Robert Parsons and other members of the Parsons family due to procedural concerns about notice and opportunity to respond. The panel unanimously determined that the case could be resolved without oral argument, and it is not to be published or cited except as allowed under 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The court noted that public office money certificates are essentially worthless promissory notes used by individuals who regard only gold and silver coins as legal currency, with a promise to pay when a proper official determination about currency substitutes occurs. Even if a conviction is overturned, some defendants may still possess immunity under Section 1983. The ruling does not prevent the district court from issuing a pre-filing order against Robert Parsons or family members if they file frivolous lawsuits in the future. Bethea Parsons must certify that any new claims are made in good faith and have not been previously addressed in her filings. The pre-filing order is deemed appropriately limited to address the issue at hand.
