Supreme Court sets guidelines on indigents’ filing lawsuits

Friday, April 15, 2005 | 8:49 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Thursday established guidelines to prevent indigent persons from continually filing frivolous lawsuits.

The court dismissed the suit of John Luckett, a California resident, against Edward Doumani and his La Concha Motel in Las Vegas.

Luckett, in his suit, claimed he was conned by a person identified as "M.L." into making a bet on a "hot tip." He says he gave the money to "M.L." and never saw him again. The suit accuses Doumani of allowing "M.L." to live rent-free in the motel despite his criminal record and complaints from others who had been defrauded by "M.L."

Luckett said the La Concha Motel served as a front for the scams. He also claimed Doumani posed as being licensed as a California attorney who advised him on Nevada law.

The court dismissed the suit on several grounds including that Luckett failed to sufficiently state his claims for fraud.

Luckett, when he filed the suit in Las Vegas, was allowed to proceed as an indigent without paying the court fees.

After preliminary court proceedings, District Judge Kathy Hardcastle found that Luckett was a vexatious litigant and put restrictions on him filing further suits in Nevada. She dismissed the suit.

Evidence was presented to Hardcastle that Luckett had filed at least five cases in Clark County and in each case claimed he was indigent and did not have to pay the filing fees. He had previously been declared a "vexatious litigant" in California.

Hardcastle said Luckett had repeatedly filed unmeritorious and often contradictory pleadings and papers in each of the five cases in Las Vegas.

The District Court judge ruled that Luckett could not file any new suits in Nevada in which he declares himself an indigent without first obtaining permission from the court.

The Supreme Court said Hardcastle improperly prohibited Luckett from filing proper suits statewide. It remanded the case to the district court to correct its order.

But it said a review of the record showed the suit by Luckett was without merit and should be dismissed.

The unanimous decision by the court said judges have the authority to restrict these frivolous suits. But there are no guidelines.

The court said "constitutional considerations prohibit a complete ban on filing by indigent ... litigtants if the ban prevents the litigant from proceeding in criminal cases and in original civil actions that sufficiently implicate a fundamental right."

It said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has guidelines for restricting frivolous suits and they protect constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court said in the future, District Courts, in restricting the right to file suit, must give a person reasonable notice to oppose such an order and there must be an adequate record of previously frivolous suits.

It said the District Court must find that these prior suits have not only been repetitive but also without fact or legal basis or were filed with the intent to harass. And any court order restricting future suits must be narrowly drawn.

Hardcastle granted a summary judgment for Doumani and La Concha because Luckett did not file a surety bond in the case. The Supreme Court overturned that finding by Hardcastle.