Andersen v. Cate CA6

Filed 11/17/14 Andersen v. Cate CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ANDREW ANDERSEN, H035912 (Monterey County Plaintiff, Super. Ct. No. M96461)

v.

MATTHEW CATE, as Secretary, etc. et al.,

Defendants.

Andrew Andersen appeals an order of the trial court declaring him a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3).1 The origin of this case is appellant’s contention that while he was incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison, officials withheld personal property that he ordered from prison-approved vendors. The property that was the subject of the appellant’s litigation was a clip-on lamp, four boxes of Pasta Roni and candy. During the pendency of the litigation, appellant ultimately received the property. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE The litigation regarding appellant’s property began on January 21, 2009, when appellant filed the first of three complaints seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Appellant alleged that respondents confiscated his personal property without fair notice

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

and that the items he ordered should not have been prohibited because they were from prison-approved vendors. On May 29, 2009, appellant filed an application for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction requesting possession of the property. On June 19, 2009, appellant filed his second amended complaint. On July 9, 2009, appellant filed an “Amended Second Application for TRO and Amended Notice of Motion and Amended Motion for Second Preliminary Injunction.” At the same time, appellant asked the court to find Warden Hedgpeth of Salinas Valley State Prison in contempt, but later withdrew that request. Appellant then filed a “Notice of Application for Writ of Possession and Hearing.” One week later, appellant filed a “Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of” his second application for a TRO and preliminary injunction with an additional declaration. On July 22, 2009, he filed the “Third Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.” Respondents filed a demurrer to appellant’s third amended complaint, which the superior court overruled on September 18, 2009. At the same time, the court denied appellant’s motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction. In August 2009, appellant filed a second application for writ of possession, but he later withdrew this application. In November 2009, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his request for a preliminary injunction that was almost 100 pages in length. Appellant also filed a demurrer and motion to strike respondents’ answer to the third amended complaint. At the same time, the court granted appellant’s motion to compel discovery responses. Beginning in 2010, appellant filed five separate discovery motions, including additional amendments and supplements. The superior court held seven hearings in this matter in eight months.