United States District Court, D. Alaska
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court at Docket 5 and Docket 7 are Defendant Bankruptcy
Trustee Larry Compton's (“Trustee”) Motions
to Declare Donald Tangwall a Vexatious Litigant and Require
Pre-Filing Order for Him to File Any Pleadings and to Dismiss
Case.[1] Plaintiff Donald Tangwall opposed the
motions at Docket 10 and Docket 12. Trustee replied at Docket
11. Oral argument was held on June 29, 2018, at Fairbanks,
Alaska.[2]
The
Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1334(a).
BACKGROUND
Mr.
Tangwall has an extensive litigation history in the courts
that began more than twenty years ago and spans across the
United States. The record in this case demonstrates that Mr.
Tangwall has filed multiple motions, cases, and appeals on
the same issue to different courts.[3] The current action was
initiated by Mr. Tangwall in March, 2018. Mr. Tangwall filed
a petition seeking for the district court “to take
control” of two cases in the Alaska Bankruptcy Court,
case number 11-00939 and case number 12-00501.[4] The long history
of the bankruptcy proceedings is not set out here; it is set
forth in an order entered by this Court in a prior case
concerning the same bankruptcy proceedings, which summary the
Court adopts herein by reference.[5]
The
history of the bankruptcy proceedings is also set out in a
Memorandum Decision entered by the Bankruptcy Court on May 3,
2017. On that same day, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
declaring Donald A. Tangwall a vexatious litigant and denying
Mr. Tangwall's motion to find all judgments, orders, and
memorandum void ab initio.[6] Mr. Tangwall appealed both orders to
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed them both on
April 6, 2018.[7]
On
March 5, 2018, Mr. Tangwall initiated this case by filing a
Petition for Superintending Control.[8] Mr. Tangwall alleges that
the actions of numerous judges and lawyers involved in the
bankruptcy proceedings “smacked of collusion” and
he states that “this Court needs to take control of the
two bankruptcy estates referenced above and order an
investigation or such other remedy as this Court deems
just.”[9] On March 21, 2018, the Trustee filed the
two instant motions. One motion recounts Mr. Tangwall's
extensive litigation history and requests that the Court
declare Mr. Tangwall a vexatious litigant.[10] The other
motion requests that the Petition for Superintending Control
be dismissed with prejudice.[11]
DISCUSSION
I.
The Court has Authority to Impose Filing Restrictions on
Litigants
Under
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the Court has
the authority to impose filing restrictions, such as a
pre-filing order, on abusive litigants.[12] Because such
orders constrain a litigant's fundamental right of access
to the courts, however, they should rarely be used and only
if courts comply with certain procedural and substantive
requirements.[13] Before imposing pre-filing restrictions,
a court must:
(1) give litigants notice and an opportunity to oppose the
order before it is entered; (2) compile an adequate record
for appellate review, including a listing of all the cases
and motions that led the district court to conclude that a
vexatious litigant order was needed; (3) make substantive
findings of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the
order narrowly so as to closely fit the specific vice
encountered.[14]
The
first two requirements are procedural. The latter two
requirements are substantive; they are designed to help a
court define “who is, in fact, a ‘vexatious
litigant' and construct a remedy that will stop the
litigant's abusive behavior while not unduly infringing
the litigant's right to access the
courts.”[15] The Court addresses each in turn as
follows:
A.
Notice and the Opportunity to Oppose the Order
In this
case, the first requirement-notice and an opportunity to
oppose-has been provided to Mr. Tangwall. Mr. Tangwall
responded to the Trustee's motion with a number of
filings, all of which the Court has considered.[16] Mr. Tangwall
also had the opportunity to oppose the motion at the oral
argument on June 29, 2018.[17]
B.
Adequate Record of Cases and Motions
The
second requirement directs a Court to compile an adequate
record for appellate review, including a listing of the cases
and motions that led it to conclude that a vexatious litigant
order is needed. The record “needs to show . . . that
the litigant's activities were numerous or
abusive.”[18] The Trustee's motion and exhibits
thoroughly document Mr. Tangwall's litigation activities
in various other proceedings at various federal and state
venues, including Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, Montana, and
the Northern Mariana Islands.[19] Indeed, Mr. Tangwall has been
declared to be a vexatious litigant by at least three other
courts.[20] Mr. Tangwall does not dispute the
accuracy of these court filings.
Several
of Mr. Tangwall's cases involve him being found to have
fraudulently conveyed assets to other entities (frequently to
a trust to which he is the trustee) and then attempting to
protect the fraudulent transfers by filing countless
documents and appeals that lack merit and legal or factual
support.[21] Other cases involve Mr. Tangwall's
representing trusts or corporate entities without a license
to practice law.[22] The Court adopts the Trustee's
listing of the cases and the orders entered therein and
concludes from that listing that a vexatious litigant order
is needed.[23]
C.
Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment
The
third requirement directs the Court to examine both the
number and content of the litigant's filings to determine
whether they are frivolous and/or harassing. The Court finds
that Montana State Court Judge David Cybulski succinctly and
accurately described Mr. Tangwall's vexatious litigation
history as follows:
Mr. Tangwall's litigation history . . . demonstrates his
twenty-plus-year history of filing frivolous and patently
meritless lawsuits, and demonstrates that he has no intention
of refraining from such practices without intervention of the
Court. . . .
Mr. Tangwall's history in other jurisdictions . . .
demonstrates that he has a long and storied history of
vexatious ligation practice and procedure. He has been
notified on numerous occasions that he is not allowed to
represent corporate entities or other parties, but he
continues to do so. Courts lament his lack of clarity, or his
filings' lack of any basis in law or fact, or his bad
faith, and yet such actions continue. In all practicality,
the only way to rein in Mr. Tangwall's vexatious
litigation is to require that he submit all proposed filings
to the Court for preapproval, in order to avoid needlessly
dragging innocent would-be defendants into the court system,
and thereby wasting large amounts of the Court's
time-time that would be better served on real
cases.[24]
Even if
the Court were to consider solely the cases in the Alaska
Bankruptcy Court and in this Court, there is ample evidence
to support findings of frivolousness and harassment. Mr.
Tangwall has made numerous and redundant filings, nearly all
of which lack any basis in the fact or law.[25] Yet each of
Mr. Tangwall's motions were duly heard by the Alaska
Bankruptcy Court or this Court or the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel or the Ninth Circuit, and they have required numerous
responsive filings from the Trustee. The Court does not
dispute that Mr. Tangwall had the right to seek redress with
the courts as to ownership of the Montana Property. A
litigant is entitled to his or her day in court. But Mr.
Tangwall has had many days in many courts, yet he steadfastly
refuses to accept the courts' decisions.
The
following is a glimpse of trial cases and appeals that are
related to the Montana Property:
• Case No. F11-00939-HAR
• Adv. No. F14-90016-HAR
• Adv. No. F14-90020-HAR
• Case No. 4:16-cv-00022-SLG
• Case No. ...