Wade v. Gilliland et al

Filing 168

ORDER DENYING 162 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT'S MOTION TO VACATE PRE-FILING ORDER Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ELROY K. WADE, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 No. C 10-00425 WHA v. WOODY GILLILAND, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM SMITHERMAN, in his individual capacity; GEORGIA MARTIN, in her individual capacity; ALICE YOUNG, in her individual capacity; SARAH NELSON, in her individual capacity; KATHYANN BATISTE, in her individual capacity; and BERLENE ROBERTS, in her individual capacity, ORDER DENYING VEXATIOUS LITIGANT’S MOTION TO VACATE PRE-FILING ORDER Defendants. 20 Pro se plaintiff Elroy K. Wade, a vexatious litigant, has yet again filed another motion — 21 his third — challenging the imposition of his 2010 pre-filing order. Whereas Wade previously 22 brought two motions for injunctive relief in 2019 and 2020 (Dkt. Nos. 137, 155), challenging 23 the validity and constitutionality of the pre-filing order, which we denied (Dkt. Nos. 141, 160), 24 he now brings a motion to vacate said order as “void” pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) (Dkt. No. 25 162). Though the legal dressing has changed, the thrust of his motion remains the same as 26 before, namely, he claims that this Court did not have the power to impose the pre-filing order 27 pursuant to the All Writs Act. 28 1 For reasons already explained in the 2019 order denying Wade’s request for injunctive 2 relief (Dkt. No. 141 at 3–4), which our court of appeals affirmed (Dkt. No. 159), and for the 3 reasons given by our court of appeals in Wade v. Acosta, 727 F.App'x 454 (9th Cir. 2018), 4 Wade’s argument is without merit. His motion is thus DENIED. 5 Wade is welcome to submit, for preliminary review, a non-frivolous and plausible 6 complaint, if he has one. Please be aware that our district court has hundreds and hundreds of 7 other lawsuits (plus criminal cases), so that every hour spent previewing frivolous complaints 8 (if they are frivolous) takes away from our time on non-frivolous cases. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: January 13, 2021. 12 13 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?