Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, No. G055823 (D4d3 May 16, 2019)
Plaintiff here is a pro se that lost a case a long time ago and has been suing his attorneys over and over again since then. Four years ago, he got tagged with a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7. So he needs to get the presiding judge to sign off before he files any more cases pro se. He tried to sue the attorneys again. But the PJ said no, his claims were time-barred. He sought reconsideration, filed an appeal (which was deemed a writ) and came up zero on everything.
Meanwhile, he filed another lawsuit against the same lawyers. The PJ had turned over in the interim and current PJ (no doubt unawares of the last case) let him proceed. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings based on res judicata. The trial court granted the motion, but on the ground the case was time-barred. The Court of Appeal affirms, but on res judiciata grounds. The first prefiling denial was a final decision on the merits, so it operates as a bar.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff here is a pro se that lost a case a long time ago and has been suing his attorneys over and over again since then. Four years ago, he got tagged with a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7. So he needs to get the presiding judge to sign off before he files any more cases pro se. He tried to sue the attorneys again. But the PJ said no, his claims were time-barred. He sought reconsideration, filed an appeal (which was deemed a writ) and came up zero on everything.
Meanwhile, he filed another lawsuit against the same lawyers. The PJ had turned over in the interim and current PJ (no doubt unawares of the last case) let him proceed. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings based on res judicata. The trial court granted the motion, but on the ground the case was time-barred. The Court of Appeal affirms, but on res judiciata grounds. The first prefiling denial was a final decision on the merits, so it operates as a bar.
Affirmed.