A California man who was declared a vexatious litigant 16 years ago has failed to persuade an appeals court that vexatious litigation is a mental illness comparable to compulsive gambling.

While “many vexatious litigants probably do suffer from some sort of mental disorder,” vexatious litigation is not the “exclusive province” of the mentally ill, the 4th District Court of Appeal said in ruling that John Luckett should not be relieved of a vexatious litigant order imposed on him in 1991.

Luckett argued that since vexatious litigation is a disorder, a doctor should have certified him mentally ill before he was branded a vexatious litigant.

“[I]t is perfectly imaginable that a very sane, if wrongfully-minded person -- Conan Doyle’s fictional Moriarty comes to mind -- [ ] would be perfectly willing to pursue a course of vexatious litigation in the course of some ulterior purpose,” the 4th District said.

The court also found Luckett had not shown a change in circumstances “indicating a mending of his ways or conduct to support a reversal” of the vexatious litigant order. An applicant seeking relief from such an order “must actually give up the habit of suing people as a way of life,” the opinion said.

Luckett's order bars him from filing a complaint without the permission of the presiding judge of the court where it is to be filed. The 4th District declared him vexatious after he filed “at least 43 different appeals or writ petitions in this court while acting” as his own attorney.

In his application to vacate the order, Luckett declared that during the past 16 years, the Orange County Superior Court had granted his requests to file “at least 20 lawsuits or more” and he had “prevailed on all of them, or settled out of court except for a few here and there, which were dismissed” because he could not post the required bond under the vexatious litigant statutes.

Presiding Justice David G. Sills, writing for the 4th District, didn't see that as evidence of a reformed character. “All Luckett’s declaration shows is that, instead of devoting his life to something productive, he has spent the last 16 years suing people,” he said, pointing out that

It is not some success in litigation, even after a person is adjudged to be a vexatious litigant, that shows a change of circumstances. Just the opposite is the case.

There is still some hope for Luckett, who is 41 and said in oral arguments that he does not want to “die a vexatious litigant.” Sills said the “members of this court heartily share that goal” and if after a “decent interval” of “certainly no less than four years,” Luckett “can show that he has stopped his obsessive litigation and ... he has genuinely 'mended his ways,' this court will welcome the occasion to vacate its 1991 prefiling order.”

By Matthew Heller
3/28/08