Moore v. Fox et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/14/2020 DENYING 20 Motion to remove counsel; DENYING 21 Motion to Continue all proceedings; DENYING 22 , 30 Motions for Relief from Judgment. Any further findings will be summarily stricken without further notice to the parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUANE REED MOORE, SR.,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-CV-2641-MCE-DMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding retained counsel, brought this civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Final judgment was entered on August 21, 2019. See ECF No. 15.

19

Plaintiff appealed on February 12, 2020. See ECF No. 26. On March 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit

20

Court of Appeals issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of his appeal.

21

See ECF No. 29. Pending before the Court in this closed docket are the following post-judgment

22

motions filed by plaintiff pro se: (1) motion to remove counsel, see ECF No. 20; (2) motion to

23

continue all proceedings, see ECF No. 21; and (3) motions for relief from judgment, see ECF

24

Nos. 22 and 30.

25

Plaintiff’s motion to remove counsel, filed pro se filed over five months after entry of

26

judgment, will be denied both as unnecessary because this case was closed prior to the motion

27

being filed and as an improper pro se filing by a represented litigant. Termination of plaintiff’s

28

counsel should have been accomplished while the case was pending by way of a notice of
1

1

substitution of attorneys substituting plaintiff pro se for terminated counsel.
Plaintiff’s motion to continue all proceedings, also filed pro se, will be denied as both

2
3

unnecessary because there were no active proceedings to continue as of the date the motion was

4

filed and as an improperly pro filing by a represented litigant.
Finally, plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s final judgment entered on August 21, 2019.

5
6

The Court observes that the two currently pending motions for relief from judgment, see ECF

7

Nos. 22 and 30, are nearly identical to a prior pro se motion for relief from judgment filed by

8

plaintiff pro se on September 9, 2019, see ECF No. 16. The Court denied plaintiff’s September 9,

9

2019, motion for failure to show any basis for reconsideration. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff’s

10

current nearly identical motions will be denied for the same reason.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to remove counsel, ECF No. 20, is DENIED;

13

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to continue all proceedings, ECF No. 21, is DENIED;

14

3.

Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment, ECF Nos. 22 and 30, are DENIED;

4.

Any further findings will be summarily stricken without further notice to the

15

and

16
17
18
19

parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2020

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2