(PC) Magee v. Delaney, 2:19-cv-01634

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee is a pro se state prisoner who lodged (but did not file) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the Eastern District of California.
In 1988 Judge Lawrence K. Karlton entered a prefiling order declaring Magee a vexatious litigant and requiring any new petition to be certified as presenting new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court.
The 1988 prefiling order remains in effect and was not vacated.
Magee’s lodged complaint does not include the required certification mandated by the 1988 order.
The court directed the Clerk to provide Magee with a copy of the 1988 prefiling order and ordered Magee to show cause within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to file the required certification.
The opinion notes Magee was also previously designated a three‑strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Magee must submit the certification required by the 1988 prefiling order before his pleading may be filed	Magee advances §1983 claims but did not provide the certification	The 1988 prefiling order requires a certification that new claims were never previously raised and disposed of; absent it pleadings are not to be filed	The prefiling order remains in effect; Magee failed to certify; court precludes filing and requires compliance or show cause
Whether failure to file the required certification warrants dismissal of the action	Magee has not yet provided a response or certification in this lodging	Failure to comply with the prefiling order may justify dismissal	Court ordered Magee to show cause within 30 days and warned that failure to timely respond may result in a dismissal recommendation

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (approving prefiling review procedures for vexatious litigants)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (discussing frivolous‑pleading standards; abrogated Franklin on other grounds)
Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition and scope of California’s vexatious‑litigant rules)