Case 2:16-cv-05213-CAS-SK Document 60 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:553
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Date December 22, 2016
`Case No.  CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
`GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.
`Title 
`
`O
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 
`Present: The Honorable 
`Not Present 
`N/A 
`CONNIE LEE 
` 
` 
`Tape No.
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Deputy Clerk 
` 
`Attorneys Present for Defendants: 
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 
`N/A 
`N/A 
`(IN CHAMBERS) DEFENDANT CITY OF OXNARD’S MOTION
`FOR ORDER RE RENEWED NOTICE OF VEXATIOUS
`LITIGANT AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (Dkt.
`52, filed December 7, 2016)
`
`Proceedings:  
`
` 
`
`The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of January
`9, 2017 is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
` 
`
`On December 7, 2016, the City filed the instant renewed motion to declare plaintiff
`a vexatious litigant “on the grounds that the SAC is now being prosecuted by a declared
`vexatious litigant, who is proceeding in pro per.” Dkt. 52 at 2. In addition, the City
`requests a status conference to: (a) establish the proper form for the caption in this action
`because “plaintiff has made no formal motion to amend the caption or substitute parties
`or counsel” and “Defendants are unsure of the proper caption for pleadings in this
`Action”;1 and (b) request that defendants’ time to file responsive pleadings be stayed
`until the Court determines whether the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) is
`subject to pre-screening. Id. at 2, 5. In its conclusion, the City also requests that the
`Court “dismiss, sua sponte, plaintiff’s action, with prejudice because plaintiff continues
`to file complaints in this Action in violation of the Vexatious Litigant Order.” Id. at 6.
`Plaintiff filed an opposition to the City’s motion on December 21, 2016. Dkt. 54.
`
`
`On February 6, 2014, in Broemer v. Bush, No. 2:10-cv-05193-MMM-RZ, Judge
`Morrow designated plaintiff a vexatious litigant and required plaintiff to submit for
`
`                                                            
`1 The Court notes that, on November 28, 2016, the Court terminated John J. Doe as
`a party to this case and added Broemer as plaintiff. Therefore the Court declines to set a
`status conference regarding the caption in this action.
` 
`CV-5213 (12/16)
`
` CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 3 
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-05213-CAS-SK Document 60 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:554
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Date December 22, 2016
`Case No.  CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
`GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.
`Title 
`
`O
`
` 
`screening any pleading that he proposes to file to initiate a new action, where the
`pleading asserts claims based on the following perceived wrongs:
`
`(1) efforts to manipulate Broemer’s personal and romantic relationships,
`(2) efforts to manipulate Broemer’s consciousness, (3) efforts to limit
`Broemer’s employment options or prevent him from being employed,
`(4) attempts to use Broemer as a means of exposing government abuse,
`(5) the unauthorized taking or use of Broemer’s writings, copyrighted work,
`or intellectual property, (6) the “spiking” of Broemer’s food with stimulants,
`drugs, toxins, bacteria, or fungi without his consent, (7) efforts to convince
`Broemer that his legs are not the same length and to advise him on the
`medical treatment he should obtain for the condition, (8) efforts to get
`Broemer addicted to methamphetamine or other drugs, (9) efforts to promote
`Broemer’s consumption of alcohol (10) compelling Broemer to work for the
`government or the intelligence agencies of the United States, (11) retaliating
`against Broemer for his public criticisms of prominent Republicans, (12) use
`of Broemer in sting operations, (12) efforts to stall freeway traffic,
`(13) attacks against Broemer or his pets using energy weapons, gas, or
`microwaves, (14) efforts to sabotage Broemer’s vehicle, (15) the theft of
`Broemer’s pets, (16) the monitoring of Broemer, (16) the eviction of
`Broemer, and (17) any other matter related to any of the claims or issues
`raised in the following actions: Broemer v. CIA, et al., No. CV 01-1629
`MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer v. United States, et al., No. CV
`01-07241 MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer v. Central Intelligence
`Agency, et al., No. CV 01-0430 MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2001)[;] Broemer
`v. United States, et al., No. CV 03-09097 ER (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2003)[;]
`Broemer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., No. CV 08-05515 MMM
`(RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2008)[;] Broemer v. George Bush, et al., CV 10-05193
`MMM (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2008).
`
`
`Broemer v. Bush, No. 2:10-cv-05193-MMM-RZ (Feb. 6, 2014 C.D. Cal.), dkt. 62 at 16
`(“2014 Vexatious Litigant Order”). The court also found it appropriate for Broemer to
`submit for screening any pleadings against the following parties:
`
`(1) the Central Intelligence Agency, (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
`(3) the Department of Justice, (4) the National Security Agency, (5) the
`Department of Homeland Security, (6) the Defense Intelligence Agency,
`
` 
`CV-5213 (12/16)
`
` CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 3 
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-05213-CAS-SK Document 60 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:555
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Date December 22, 2016
`Case No.  CV16-5213-CAS(SKx)
`GLEN BROEMER v. THE CITY OF OXNARD ET AL.
`Title 
`
`O
`
` 
`
`(7) the United States Secret Service, (8) the United States Army, (9) the
`Internal Revenue Service, (10) the United States Postal Service, (11) the
`Office of Personnel Management, (12) the National Personnel Records
`Center, (13) any agent or employee of those agencies and departments
`(14) the United States House of Representatives, (15) the City and County of
`Los Angeles, (16) former President George W. Bush; (17) former Vice
`President Dick Cheney; (18) former CIA director George Tenet; and
`(19) former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
`
`Id. at 17.
`
`In the SAC—filed on November 28, 2016—plaintiff asserts two claims:
`(1) violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) IIED. Dkt. 48.
`The gravamen of plaintiff’s claims is that his “cats were poisoned and intentionally
`exposed to parasites and other physical harms while Plaintiff resided in the City of
`Oxnard, which individually or in combination led to the deaths of these pets.” Id. ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`The Court finds that the claims in plaintiff’s SAC run afoul of the 2014 Vexatious
`Litigant Order, in that they plead claims based on injuries to plaintiff’s pets.
`Accordingly, the Court has hereby reviewed and screened the SAC and concludes that
`plaintiff’s claims fall within the prohibitions of the 2014 Vexatious Litigant Order. The
`Court therefore STRIKES the SAC and ORDERS plaintiff to lodge a third amended
`complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The City’s request for a status
`conference to seek a stay is therefore DENIED as moot.
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`
`
`00 
`
`: 
`CL 
`
`00 
`
` 
`CV-5213 (12/16)
`
` CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 3 of 3 
`
`