Geraldine Pierce et al v. Donald J. Trump et al
Filing
43
ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 ORDER AND JUDGMENT; REOPENING CASE; AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Manuel L. Real. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs Objections. The Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (see order for details) (Made JS-5, Case reopened) (hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GERALDINE PIERCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. CV 17-07267-R (RAO)
ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 27,
2018 ORDER AND JUDGMENT;
REOPENING CASE; AND
ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
On February 2, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
18
Recommendation (“Report”) recommending dismissal of the Complaint. Dkt. No.
19
38. Objections to the Report were due on February 22, 2018. Dkt. No. 37. On
20
February 27, 2018, the Court accepted the Report, dismissed the action, and entered
21
judgment. Dkt. Nos. 40-41.
22
At the time the Court entered judgment, no Objections had been entered on
23
the docket. However, the Court is now aware that Objections were timely filed.
24
The Objections were mailed on February 21, 2018, and received by the Court
25
mailroom on February 23, 2018. See Dkt. No. 42. The Objections were entered on
26
the docket on March 2, 2018. See id. Because the Court had not considered the
27
timely-filed Objections in its prior order accepting the Report, the Court finds it
28
appropriate to reopen the case to consider the Objections. The February 27, 2018
1
Order Accepting Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40) and Judgment (Dkt.
2
No. 41) are VACATED. The action is REOPENED for the purpose of considering
3
the Objections to the Report.
4
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint (Dkt. No.
5
1), all of the other records and files herein, and the Report. Further, the Court
6
engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff
7
objected.
8
Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of the case, setting forth various arguments
9
regarding standing and joinder. The Objections do not dispute that Seavon Pierce
10
has prepared the documents in this case, or that Geraldine Pierce has filed the
11
Complaint and other documents on behalf of and at the request of her son, Seavon.
12
Based on the representations made by Geraldine to the Magistrate Judge at the
13
February 1, 2018 hearing, and the similarities between the filings in this case and
14
the filings in other actions brought by Seavon, the Court finds that Seavon is
15
attempting to sidestep the Vexatious Litigant Order1 by having his mother,
16
Geraldine, file his documents in this Court. The Court has the authority to dismiss
17
the action as a violation of the Vexatious Litigant Order. See Ryan v. Hyden, No.
18
12cv14890MMA (BLM), 2012 WL 4793116, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012)
19
(finding case may be properly dismissed where it was “abundantly clear” that
20
vexatious litigant was using his parents to sidestep a vexatious litigant order).
21
The Court clarifies that the dismissal is without prejudice to Seavon Pierce
22
requesting leave to file a complaint pursuant to the Vexatious Litigant Order and
23
without prejudice to Geraldine Pierce filing a complaint on her own behalf.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
1
Seavon Pierce v. The U.S. Government, et al., CV 16-8010-VAP (JEM), Dkt. No.
13.
2
1
Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s Objections. The Court
2
hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
3
Magistrate Judge.
4
IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
5
6
DATED: March 6, 2018
7
8
9
___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?