Trujillo v. Biter
Filing
73
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58 , 65 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/25/17: This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
1:14-cv-01370-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF. NOS. 58 & 65)
GOMEZ, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
Guillermo Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now
18
proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) against defendants Gomez,
19
Juarez, and Fernandez (“Defendants”) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
20
Amendment. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 21). The matter was referred to a United States magistrate
21
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On February 13, 2017, defendants Gomez and Fernandez filed a motion for order
23
requiring Plaintiff to post security under Local Rule 151(b) (“the Motion”) on the ground that
24
Plaintiff qualifies as a vexatious litigant under California rules. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff did not
25
file a response.
26
On March 22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and
27
recommendations, recommending the Motion be denied. (ECF No. 65). The findings and
28
recommendations concluded that, although Local Rule 151(b) explicitly adopts the rules set
1
1
forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for determining whether litigants, including
2
those deemed vexatious, may be ordered to give a security, the court is still constrained by the
3
narrower federal standard for determining whether a litigant is vexatious. Defendants do not
4
argue that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under the federal standard.
5
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
6
recommendations within twenty-one days.
7
recommendations. (ECF No. 66). Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erroneously
8
applied the federal standard, which requires a showing of bad faith or frivolousness before a
9
litigant is deemed vexatious, rather than the state standard adopted by Local Rule 151(b), which
10
defines a vexatious litigant as one who “in the immediately preceding seven-year period has
11
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations . . . that have
12
been finally determined adversely to the person.” (ECF No. 66 at 3 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
13
§ 391(b)(3)). Plaintiff also objected to the findings and recommendations, although he appears
14
to be opposing the substance of Defendants’ motion and objecting to its being denied without
15
prejudice. (ECF No. 67).
Defendants objected to the findings and
16
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
17
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
18
the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
19
analysis.
20
The central question here is whether courts in this district look to federal or state law in
21
determining whether a litigant qualifies as vexatious such that they may be required to post
22
bond. Federal courts’ power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants is derived
23
from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d
24
1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Under federal law, such a pre-filing order is an extreme remedy
25
and should rarely be used since such sanction can tread on a litigant’s due process right of
26
access to the courts. Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that the court must make a specific finding
27
of “bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith” prior to imposing pre-filing sanctions against
28
a vexatious litigant. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). Ninth Circuit precedent
2
1
interpreting the parameters of courts’ power under the All Writs Act is binding upon this Court.
2
Although the local rules set the procedures for ordering a litigant to post security, this Court
3
cannot interpret the local rules to exceed the Court’s power under federal law.
4
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
5
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 22,
6
2017, are ADOPTED in full;
7
2. The Motion is DENIED, without prejudice to Defendants filing another motion for
8
an order requiring Plaintiff to post security that is consistent with the federal
9
standards for determining whether a litigant is vexatious; and
10
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
May 25, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?