Foley v. Valdes, 2:17-cv-02783

This is a Report and Recommendation in Foley v. Valdes, addressing Defendants’ renewed motion to declare Michael Foley a vexatious litigant and require pre-filing screening for future suits against specified defendants.
Foley has filed at least 21 federal and state actions and appeals over ~10 years arising from an initial police report (by Jeffrey Pont), divorce, custody loss, arrests, and efforts to access his children or school records.
Many suits repeatedly name the same defendants (Patricia Foley, Michelle and Jeffrey Pont, AP Express entities, World Pack USA) and allege a broad, recurring conspiracy depriving Foley of parental rights.
Numerous cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim, for want of prosecution, or on motions to dismiss; some appeals were dismissed or deemed frivolous.
The Magistrate Judge found the filings voluminous, duplicative, often frivolous or harassing, and concluded less-restrictive sanctions had not curbed Foley’s conduct.
Recommendation: grant the motion, declare Foley a vexatious litigant, and require pre-screening of future complaints filed in the District against Michelle Pont, Jeffrey Pont, A.P. Express, World Pack USA, and Patricia Foley.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Foley should be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to pre-filing restrictions	Foley opposed, arguing lack of proper service and disputing characterization of his filings	Defendants argued Foley’s repeated, duplicative, and frivolous suits and appeals abuse the courts and harass defendants	Recommended: Foley declared vexatious; pre-screening required for suits against listed defendants
Whether Foley received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before such an order	Foley contended initial proceedings were flawed by lack of service	Defendants noted they filed a renewed motion and Foley filed a substantive response	Held: procedural notice satisfied—Foley had opportunity to respond to the renewed motion
Whether the court record is adequate to support a pre-filing order	Foley implied the motion relied on speculative or incomplete facts	Defendants presented a detailed record listing numerous related cases and dispositions	Held: record adequate—documented numerous filings, dismissals, and appeals justifying review
Whether any pre-filing order must be narrowly tailored	Foley argued for protection of his access to courts	Defendants sought an order focused on harassment of specific defendants	Held: order must be narrowly tailored; recommended screening limited to future suits in this District against Michelle Pont, Jeffrey Pont, A.P. Express, World Pack USA, and Patricia Foley

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (procedural safeguards and narrow tailoring required for pre-filing injunctions)
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors for imposing pre-filing restrictions and harm of litigant abuse)
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014) (articulating four-factor test for pre-filing orders)
Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1990) (mere litigiousness insufficient; filings must be patently without merit)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate recommendations)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate recommendations may waive appeal)