Dowling v. National Credit Union Administration
4:24-cv-00490
D. Ariz.Nov 22, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Angela Dawn Dowling, filed at least 28 lawsuits, mostly without factual or legal merit, in the District of Arizona and other jurisdictions.
- The court previously warned Dowling she could be deemed a vexatious litigant and enjoined from further filings after finding her prior lawsuits frivolous.
- Recent filings continued the pattern: complaints lacked specific factual allegations, failed to establish jurisdiction, and did not state claims upon which relief could be granted.
- Most of Dowling's cases had no connection to Arizona in terms of parties, events, or residency.
- The court consolidated relevant cases, denied in forma pauperis status, dismissed all pending actions with prejudice, and imposed a pre-filing injunction, giving Dowling a chance to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Plaintiff’s cases state a claim and invoke jurisdiction | Dowling alleges claims (fraud, kidnapping, etc.) but provides no supporting facts | Defendants challenge sufficiency and jurisdiction, noting lack of factual basis and venue | Plaintiff’s cases dismissed as factually and legally frivolous |
| Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a vexatious litigant | Continues to file cases despite warnings, argues for right to pursue claims | Defendants point to repetition of frivolous filings, waste of judicial resources | Court designates Plaintiff as a vexatious litigant |
| Appropriateness of denying in forma pauperis status | Seeks to continue without paying fees, despite prior dismissals | Argues IFP status is a privilege, not right, where pleadings are frivolous | Court denies IFP status in all cases |
| Propriety of a pre-filing injunction | Plaintiff does not address merit of future filings | Seeks restriction to prevent abuse of court resources | Court orders a narrowly tailored pre-filing injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading sufficient facts in complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (pleading standards, requirement of more than conclusory allegations)
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (standards for pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants)
- Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 (in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right)
- Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368 (court can deny IFP status if action is frivolous)