Case Information
*1 Case 3:17-mc-80061-JD Document 6 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD, Case No. 17-mc-80061-JD Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING FILING v. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CORPORA FICTA EMPLOYEE(S), et al.,
Defendants.
On March 10, 2015, Judge Lucy Koh of this court entered an order finding pro se plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard to be a vexatious litigant. Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al. , Case No. 14-cv-05142 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Dkt. No. 58. The order was in response to eight separate foreclosure-related lawsuits concerning two properties that Sepehry- Fard owned in Saratoga, California. Id. at 14. Judge Koh handled the eighth lawsuit and dismissed it on res judicata grounds without leave to amend. Id. at 10. The vexatious litigant portion of the order states that plaintiff “must submit for pre-filing review any complaint filed in this district concerning the foreclosure” of his property located at 18314 Baylor Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Id. at 21. It further states that if the general duty judge assigned to pre-filing review determines that the complaint is duplicative of these claims or frivolous, it will not be filed and will be returned to plaintiff. Id.
On May 15, 2017, Sepehry-Fard lodged five documents with the clerk. One document is formatted like a complaint and states that it is a “bill for $1,412,514,261.78 [f]or striking against the constitutional form of government.” Dkt. No. 1. It names more than fifty defendants, including Judge Koh and a United States Senator for California. Three of the documents are forms purporting to “fire” the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States. *2 Case 3:17-mc-80061-JD Document 6 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2 Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 4. The fifth is entitled an “Oath on Admission,” also attacking government officials. Dkt. No. 5.
All of these documents are frivolous on their face, and one expressly states that Sepehry- Fard is suing “because of grand theft of [his] properties.” Dkt. No. 1 at 8. They fall within the ambit of the vexatious litigant order, and the Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any of the five documents for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2017 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge
2