Quiroga v. King et al

Filing 83

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/08/2020. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant's motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. No. 71 ) is DENIED as moot. The Court DECLINES to adopt the June 26, 2020 Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 78 ) as the underlying motion is moot. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 74 ) is DENIED. (Gonzales, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

10

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1697 AWI JDP

Plaintiff

11

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS

v.

12

C. CHAPA, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 71, 74, 78)

13

Defendants

14
15
16

Plaintiff Monico Quiroga is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending are Defendants’ motion to declare
18 Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, a document that has been construed as a motion for reconsideration,
19 and a June 26, 2020 findings and recommendation (“F&R”) regarding Defendant’s vexatious
20 litigant motion. However, on July 16, 2020, the Court received notice that Plaintiff died in April
21 2020. Further, an inmate search with the CDCR reveals no record of Plaintiff. A certificate of
22 service regarding the suggestion of death was filed on August 17, 2020.1 Further, two pieces of
23 mail that were sent to Defendant have been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
24

Given the notice, the returned mail, and the absence of Plaintiff from the CDCR website

25 inmate locator, it is apparent that Plaintiff is deceased. With the death of Plaintiff, Defendants’
26 vexatious litigant motion and the associated F&R are both moot. Thus, the Court will deny the
27 motion and decline to adopt the F&R.
28

1

The time for a substitution of Plaintiff has not yet elapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

1

Additionally, the document that was docketed as a motion for reconsideration is 2 pages,

2 one of which is a proof of service. The motion is one sentence and comes nowhere close to
3 explaining why an error was committed or why reconsideration is warranted. There is absolutely
4 no basis to grant reconsideration on the basis of Plaintiff’s single sentence. The “motion” utterly
5 fails as a viable request for reconsideration and thus, will be denied as meritless.
6
7

ORDER

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9 1.

Defendants motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. No. 71) is DENIED as

10

moot;

11 2.

The Court DECLINES to adopt the June 26, 2020 Findings and Recommendation (Doc.

12

No. 78) as the underlying motion is moot; and

13 3.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 74) is DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: September 8, 2020

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2