Trujillo v. Hithe
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/13/17 DENYING 98 Motion to dismiss post security order. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
No. 2:14-cv-0584 JAM AC P
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On July 19, 2017, defendant Hithe filed a motion for security. ECF No. 85.
Plaintiff’s response to that motion is currently due on October 5, 2017. On September 11, 2017,
plaintiff filed a “motion to dismiss post security order.” ECF No. 98. This filing reflects a
misaunderstanding that the court’s August 15, 2017 order (ECF No. 91) required him to post
security. See ECF No. 98 at 1 (Arguing that “[p]laintiff’s motion to amend was denied without
prejudice and order (sic) to post security.”). The order did not require him to do so. Instead, it
stated only that the court was disinclined to grant leave to amend at this stage in the litigation and
advised plaintiff of his opportunity to oppose the pending motion for security. ECF No. 91 at 2-3.
Plaintiff appeared to understand as much when, on August 31, 2017, he moved for additional time
to file his response to defendant’s motion. ECF No. 93.
To the extent clarification is necessary: the court has not yet adjudicated defendant’s
motion and, by extension, has not yet concluded whether plaintiff is a vexatious litigant within the
meaning California Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq. Plaintiff’s objections to such a
finding are, therefore, premature. See ECF No. 98 (Plaintiff states that he “will object to . . . [the]
court’s order” and dispute that he meets the definition of a vexatious litigant.).1
Plaintiff’s motion includes brief arguments that defendant Hithe is not entitled to qualified
immunity and that “executive immunity” does not excuse his illegal actions. Id. at 2. These
arguments do not appear to have any bearing on whether plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and the
rationale for their inclusion is unclear to the court.
Finally, plaintiff apparently recognizes that defendant Hithe’s motion for security has not
yet been decided insofar as he asks that the motion be dismissed. Id. The court concludes that
plaintiff has not shown good cause for dismissing the motion at this time. He may respond to the
motion by way of a properly filed response on or before October 5, 2017.
It is THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to dismiss post security order
(ECF No. 98) is denied.
DATED: September 13, 2017
In a single line, plaintiff claims that he is subject to “imminent danger” of serious physical harm
and injuries. ECF No. 98 at 2. He does not expand on these allegations. To the extent plaintiff
seeks relief based on these vague claims, he may bring them by way of separate complaint. The
court concludes that such allegations do not belong in this action insofar as it is limited to claims
based on an excessive force incident which occurred at Folsom State Prison. ECF No. 44 at 2-3.
Plaintiff’s lists his current place of incarceration as Pelican Bay State Prison.
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?