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