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)

Download PDF
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

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?