Trotter v. Pfeiffer

Filing 36

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Trial in 10 Days and striking Plaintiff's unsigned Motion to Compel stay abeyance 34 , 35 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/2/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMES TROTTER,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00259-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL TRIAL IN 10 DAYS AND
STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNSIGNED
MOTION TO COMPEL STAY ABEYANCE

WARDEN PFEIFFER, et al.
(ECF Nos. 34, 35)

12

Defendants.

13
Plaintiff James Trotter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

14
15

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to compel trial in 10 days, filed on May

17

30, 2019, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel stay abeyance, filed on May 31, 2019. (ECF Nos. 34,

18

35.)

19

I.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Trial in 10 Days

20

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel trial in 10 days. (ECF No. 34.) In his

21

motion, Plaintiff asserts that he is being falsely imprisoned pursuant to the wrongful judgments

22

rendered in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case Nos. BA042025 and

23

BA051988 because he is actually innocent, no trial occurred in either case, and his sentence is

24

disproportionate to the crimes. Further, Plaintiff alleges that, on December 15, 2016, his parole was

25

illegally denied for a 5-year period. Plaintiff seeks $11,000,000.00 in compensatory and punitive

26

damages and immediate release from prison.

27

However, it has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or

28

duration of their confinement in a § 1983 action, and that their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus
1

1

relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (“[A] prison in state custody cannot use a §

2

1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. He must seek federal habeas

3

corpus relief (or appropriate state relief) instead.”); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

4

87 (1994) (stating that a claim for damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

5

imprisonment is not cognizable under § 1983 unless “the conviction or sentence has been reversed

6

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

7

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

8

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel trial in 10 days must be

9

denied.

10

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Stay Abeyance

11

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel stay abeyance. (ECF No. 35.)

12

However, both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and this Court’s Local Rule 131(b) require

13

that all pleadings and non-evidentiary documents must be signed by the filing party, if the filing

14

party is unrepresented by counsel. Since Plaintiff is unrepresented by counsel and failed to sign

15

his motion to compel stay abeyance, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s motion to compel to stay

16

abeyance from the record.

17

III.

Order

18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel trial in 10 days, (ECF No. 34), is DENIED; and

20

2.

Plaintiff’s unsigned motion to compel stay abeyance, (ECF No. 35), is STRICKEN
from the record for lack of Plaintiff’s signature.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 2, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2