United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Madiha Miner frequently files civil complaints and other
papers with the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington. On August 14, 2019, the court
declared Ms. Miner to be a vexatious litigant (see
Vexatious Litigant Order (Dkt. # 1), Ex. A) and imposed
standing litigation restrictions on her (Standing Litig.
Restrictions (Dkt. # 1) at 1-3). Those standing litigation
If the court determines that the pro se complaint
meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
then the court will direct the clerk to assign a civil case
number to the complaint and to issue summons. If the
complaint does not meet the requirements of Rule 8, the court
will enter an order declining to treat the case as a civil
(Id. at 2.)
court entered the vexatious litigant order against Ms. Miner
in Miner v. Social Security Administration, No.
C19-0821JLR, which had been consolidated with Miner v.
King County Housing Authority Section 8, No.
C19-0822JLR. (See Vexatious Litig. Order at 5-11.)
In that order, the court noted that, in addition to the
filings in C19-0821JLR and C19-0822JLR, Ms. Miner had
outstanding complaints pending before the court in the
following cases: Miner v. Kanner, No. C19-1047JLR;
Miner v. United States Federal Government, No.
C19-1048JLR; Miner v. King County Superior Court,
No. C19-1049JLR; and Miner v. Property Concepts,
Inc., No. C19-1128JLR. (Id. at 10-11.) The
court directed the Clerk to file those complaints (and any
future pro se complaints from Ms. Miner) under the
current miscellaneous case number, No. MS19-0106JLR. (See
Id. at 14.) Those four complaints are currently before
the court (Miner v. Kanner Compl. (Dkt. # 2);
Miner v. U.S. Fed. Gov't Compl. (Dkt. # 3);
Miner v. King Cty. Super. Ct. Compl. (Dkt. # 4);
Miner v. Prop. Concepts, Inc. Compl. (Dkt. # 5)),
and the court considers them in turn under the terms of its
standing litigation restrictions against Ms.
Miner v. Kanner, Ms. Miner filed a confusing,
conclusory narrative statement alleging various acts of cyber
harassment and discrimination against an assortment of
entities. (See Miner v. Kanner Compl. at 9-13.) Ms.
Miner appears to claim that she attempted to raise these
harassment and discrimination claims in the state and federal
courts but was unable to do so successfully because of
unspecified acts of prosecutorial misconduct by the King
County Prosecutor's Office and judicial bias from this
court. (See Id. at 12-13.) Ms. Miner filed many of
the same allegations in Miner v. United States Federal
Government (see Miner v. U.S. Fed. Gov't
Compl. at 1-5), but added additional conclusory and
nonsensical allegations that the federal government was
harassing her and her family members (see Id. at
6-11). The complaint in Miner v. King County Superior
Court is a one-page document that states that Ms. Miner
would like all her cases moved to the “United States
District Court in Seattle” because there has been
“fraudulent activity” and “a lot of
bias” in those cases. (See Miner v. King Cty.
Super. Ct. Compl.) Finally, in Miner v. Property
Concepts, Inc., Ms. Miner essentially re-filed her
one-page complaint in Miner v. King County Superior
Court under a different case caption (see Miner v.
Prop. Concepts, Inc. Compl. at 3) and filed duplicate
copies of another one-page complaint that alleges conclusory
claims of housing discrimination against a property
management company that has purportedly refused to respond to
Ms. Miner's requests to have a service animal at her home
(see Id. at 1-2, 4).
reviewed Ms. Miner's proposed complaints and pursuant to
the court's standing litigation restrictions, the court
declines to treat Ms. Miner's proposed complaints as
commencing a civil action because she has failed to comply
with the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a). The court DIRECTS the clerk not to
calendar, take any other action, or file any further pleading
in these matters other than a notice of appeal.
 The titles that Ms. Miner used for her
initial case filings are not accurate or easy to follow. For
example, in Miner v. Property Concepts, Inc., Ms.
Miner filed multiple documents labeled as her
“Complaint” under the same docket number.
(See Miner v. Prop. Concepts, Inc. Compl. at 1-3.)
As another example, Ms. Miner improperly titled her filing in
Miner v. United States Federal Government as her
“Amended Complaint” even though there was no
complaint to amend. (See, e.g., Miner v. U.S.
Fed. Gov't Compl. at 1.) For purposes of this order,
the court construes Ms. Miner's initial filings in each