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)

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