Greene v. Alhambra Hospital Medical Center

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 24 Motion to Change Venue. Plaintiff may not file any more motions in this Case; Any new filings will be Stricken. The Clerk of Court is instructed not to accept for filing any complaint o r application to proceed in forma pauperis from Cedric Greene unless he first obtains leave from a judge of this court. Before Greene may file an action, he must first file a motion for leave to file a complaint and attach a copy of this order and a copy of the proposed complaint to that motion. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Cedric Greene,

5

Plaintiff

2:15-cv-00451-JAD-NJK
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Denying Motion for
Change of Venue

6

v.

7

Alhambra Hospital Medical Center,
[ECF Nos. 23, 24]

8

Defendant

9
10

Pro se plaintiff Cedric Greene is no stranger to litigation. In the past year, he has filed at least

11

16 cases in this district, and his litigation conduct has already earned him vexatious-litigant status in

12

the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit. Magistrate Judge Koppe recommends that I

13

declare Greene a vexatious litigant and enter a pre-filing order against him. Greene offers no

14

substantive objection. I therefore adopt Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation, deny

15

Greene’s motion to change venue in this closed case as moot, and enter a pre-filing order against

16

Greene.

17

Discussion

18

On May 19, 2015, I adopted Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation and

19

dismissed Greene’s complaint without prejudice for lack of venue and jurisdiction.1 Greene then

20

filed a belated objection to the report and recommendation,2 a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from

21

judgment,3 and a motion for reconsideration,4 all of which I denied. He then filed a notice of appeal

22

to the Ninth Circuit5—which the panel summarily rejected as “so insubstantial as to not warrant

23
1

ECF No. 13.

2

ECF No. 11.

26

3

ECF No. 12.

27

4

ECF No. 14.

28

5

ECF No. 16.

24
25

Page 1 of 3

1

further review.”6 Undeterred, Greene then filed in this case a “declaration” addressed to Senator

2

Harry Reid purporting to request permission to litigate his lawsuits in Las Vegas.7

3

On the heels of Greene’s latest reconsideration effort, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered

4

Greene to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant subject to pre-screening of

5

all future complaints he seeks to file in this district.8 Magistrate Judge Koppe recounts Greene’s

6

lengthy litigation history in this district: in the span of about one year, he has filed at least 16 cases

7

here, all stemming from events taking place in California, making this court an improper venue.9

8

She points out that Greene has already been declared a vexatious litigant in the Central District of

9

California based on his filing of more than 70 meritless cases there, and the Ninth Circuit has

10

similarly subjected Greene to a pre-screening order after identifying more than a dozen meritless

11

appeals that he has filed there.10 Greene filed a response urging me not to make a vexatious-litigant

12

determination based on information from the Ninth Circuit or the Central District of California

13

because these courts have repeatedly and unfairly ousted him, and opining that his conduct has not

14

risen to the abusive or vexatious level.11 He offers no substantive objections to Judge Koppe’s

15

findings and conclusions;12 he submits a one-page response requesting that he be allowed to file a

16

motion for change of venue in every case he has pending in this district.13

17
18

In light of Greene’s abusive litigation practices in this district and other courts, and his
failure to file specific objections to Magistrate Judge Koppe’s recommendation, I find that a pre-

19
20

6

ECF No. 17.

7

ECF No. 20.

8

ECF No. 21.

9

ECF No. 23 at 1.

21
22
23
24

10

ECF No. 21 at 5.

26

11

ECF No. 22 at 3.

27

12

ECF No. 25.

28

13

ECF No. 22.

25

Page 2 of 3

1

filing order is warranted: Greene may not file a complaint or application to proceed in forma

2

pauperis in this district without first obtaining leave from a judge of this court. And because this

3

case is closed, I summarily deny Greene’s motion for change of venue.14 Greene is cautioned that no

4

further filings will be entertained in this case and that all future complaints he files in this district

5

will be subject to this pre-filing order.

6

Conclusion

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and

8

recommendation [ECF No. 23] is ADOPTED, and Greene’s motion for change of venue [ECF

9

No. 24] is DENIED as moot. GREENE MAY NOT FILE ANY MORE MOTIONS IN THIS

10

CASE; ANY NEW FILINGS WILL BE STRICKEN.

11

The Clerk of Court is instructed not to accept for filing any complaint or application to

12

proceed in forma pauperis from Cedric Greene unless he first obtains leave from a judge of this

13

court. Before Greene may file an action, he must first file a motion for leave to file a complaint and

14

attach a copy of this order and a copy of the proposed complaint to that motion. If the court does not

15

grant Greene written permission to file a complaint within 30 days of the date of his motion,

16

permission will be deemed denied.

17

Dated June 2, 2016

18

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

ECF No. 24.
Page 3 of 3