Is California's vexatious litigant law unconstitutionally vague?

QUESTION PRESENTED Calif. vexatious litigant law is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The language is unclear as to: (a) what is “litigation”; (b) what has or doesn’t have “merit”; (c) what are “reasonable expenses” that must be posted for “security”; (d) what can be counted as 5 losses; (e) how far back is 7 years; and (f) which “presiding” justice can rule on this. The statute only applies to plaintiffs “in propria persona”, but it has been applied to non-parties, to defendants, and to attorneys for defendants and for plaintiffs by judges who decided each was also a “vexatious litigant” (“VL”). In each role above, Kinney has been penalized: (1) without testimony under oath as to the VL criteria; and (2) without allowing him a chance to complete any appeals. ; The VL statute requires 5 out of 7 losses during a period of 7 years, but that can occur in 1 case with 6 defendants since Calif. requires an appeal in 60 days for each dismissed defendant. A plaintiff can “lose” against 5 defendants, but “win” the case against the 6 defendant and still be called a VL. Kinney filed a facial and as-applied challenge to | VL laws that was dismissed sua sponte; and his appeal was not allowed to proceed. This continues 10+ years of retaliation by: (1) refusing to correct COA rulings that are (2) mislabeling Kinney as a VL in state and federal courts; (3) dismissing his cases sua sponte, and (4) dismissing his appeals before any are completed. Why can’t Kinney get any Ist Amendment rights? i