A self-represented litigant has been declared a vexatious litigant by the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three. Maridol Mendones filed a complaint against the State of California and several judicial officers on August 29, 2024, in San Francisco City & County Superior Court (Case No. CPF-23-517961), alleging improper denial of her fee waiver application.
Mendones's legal troubles began after her termination as a registered nurse in 2018. Since then, she has filed multiple appeals challenging various court decisions, all of which have been decided adversely against her. In her latest appeal, Mendones accused Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye (Ret.), Clerk/Executive Officer Jorge Navarrete, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Florentino Jimenez of acting corruptly in denying her fee waiver application. She claimed that Navarrete and Jimenez forged the Chief Justice's signature on the order denying her request.
The court found these allegations meritless and upheld the trial court’s judgment dismissing her first amended complaint (FAC). The court also noted that Mendones had previously filed five other appeals since 2021 that were finally determined adversely to her under Code of Civil Procedure section 391. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and declared Mendones a vexatious litigant.
In addition to affirming the dismissal of her FAC, the appellate court imposed a prefiling order prohibiting Mendones from filing new litigation in California courts without obtaining permission from the presiding judge or justice where she intends to file. This decision was based on Mendones's persistent pattern of filing meritless appeals, which the court deemed an abuse of judicial resources.
Mendones had also challenged prior adverse determinations including cases against the Board of Registered Nursing and Washington Hospital Healthcare System. Each case was dismissed or decided against her for reasons ranging from lack of jurisdiction to absolute judicial immunity protecting judicial officers from such claims.
Represented by herself throughout these proceedings, Mendones failed to convince the court that any amendments to her complaints could overcome judicial immunity defenses. The judges concluded that both absolute judicial immunity for Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and quasi-judicial immunity for Navarrete and Jimenez barred all claims against them.
The attorneys involved include Petrou J., Tucher P.J., and Rodriguez J., who concurred with the decision. The case ID is A170046/Mendones v. State of California et al.