Quillar v. Zepeda, et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/28/12 DENYING 97 Motion for Reconsideration of 96 Ruling. (Meuleman, A) (Main Document 100 replaced on 2/29/2012) (Meuleman, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEE V. QUILLAR,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

NIKKI ZEPEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.2:06-CV-02394 JAM-GGH (PC)
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Lee

18

Quillar (“Plaintiff”), a pro se California state prisoner.

19

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

20

to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

21

The

On August 4, 2011 Defendant D. Shankland (“Defendant”) filed

22

a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (Doc. #85).

23

January 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s Motion

24

(Doc. #96).

25

Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate

26

Judge’s Ruling (Doc. #97).

27
28

On

On January 17, 2012, Defendant filed the instant

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303 govern the
standard for a Motion for Reconsideration.
1

The district court “may

1

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that

2

the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

3

law.”

4

28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)A); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

5

and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

6

the Magistrate Judge’s Order.

7

Pursuant to Local Rule 151(b), the Eastern District of

8

California has adopted the California vexatious litigant standard,

9

Section 391 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (“Section

10

391”).

11

“[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced,

12

prosecuted, or maintained in proper person at least five

13

litigations other than in a small claims court that have been []

14

finally determined adversely to the person.

15

states that “[t]he provisions of Title 3A, part 2 of the California

16

Code of Civil Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, are

17

hereby adopted as a procedural Rule of this Court

18

151(b).

19

a bright-line rule precluding this Court from considering other

20

factors.

21

Section 391 defines a vexatious litigant as any person who

. . .”

The Local Rule

. . ..”

L.R.

Contrary to Defendant’s argument, Local Rule 151(b) is not

Here, the Magistrate Judge based the decision to deny

22

Defendant’s Motion on the procedures set forth in De Long v.

23

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

District Court must make “substantive findings as to the frivolous

25

or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions.”

26

(internal citations omitted).

27

district court needs to look at both the number and content of the

28

filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims.”

Under De Long, a

912 F.2d at 1148

To make such a finding, “the

2

1

Id.

2

When issuing a vexatious litigant order “care is demanded in

3

order to protect access to the courts, which serves as the final

4

safeguard for constitutional rights.”

5

proper for the Magistrate Judge to consider the more substantive

6

analysis required by De Long instead of blithely following Section

7

391.

8

erroneous or contrary to law.

Id. at 1149.

Thus, it was

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s order is not clearly

9
10

ORDER

11

For the reasons set forth above,

12

1.

13
14
15

The Request for Reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s

Ruling is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2012

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3