(PS) Barroga-PREFILING ORDER v. Board of Administration Cal Public Employees' Retirement System

Filing 8

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/05/22 DENYING 7 Second Motion for Reconsideration. No further filings will be entertained by the court in this closed case. (Benson, A.)

Case 2:22-mc-00301-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUCIO A. BARROGA,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:22-mc-00301-DAD-AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CAL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM,

(Doc. No. 7)

Defendant.

17
18

On November 17, 2022, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for

19

reconsideration of the court’s October 31, 2022 order determining that plaintiff’s allegations in

20

the lodged complaint are frivolous and closing this case. (Doc. No. 6.) Therein, the court advised

21

that “[n]o further filings will be entertained by the court in this closed case.” (Id.) Nevertheless,

22

on December 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 7.)

23

In the pending second motion for reconsideration, plaintiff argues that his lodged

24

complaint in this action should not have been subject to prefiling review because the prefiling

25

order cited by the undersigned was actually just a recommendation by a magistrate judge that the

26

district court declare plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. (Id. at 2.) According to plaintiff, “[t]he

27

prefiling order, which declared plaintiff a vexatious litigant does not exist.” (Id.) Plaintiff is

28

mistaken. While the undersigned cited to the underlying findings and recommendations that
1

Case 2:22-mc-00301-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 2
1

recommended plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant (Doc. No. 4), the docket in that case

2

reflects that those findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the district judge on

3

September 30, 2019. See Barroga v. Board of Administration, Cal. Public Employees’

4

Retirement System, (“CalPERS”), 2:19-cv-0921-MCE-KJN, Doc. No. 32 (Prefiling Order). In

5

other words, plaintiff was in fact declared a vexatious litigant. Thus, plaintiff’s second motion for

6

reconsideration does not provide any basis upon which the undersigned should reconsider the

7

October 31, 2022 order.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 7) is denied.

8
9
10

This case shall remain closed. No further filings will be entertained by the court in this closed
case.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 5, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2