(PC) Gradford v. Tiexiera ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Case No. 1:19-cv-01783-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 13 v. AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00201-DAD-GSA AND 14 TIEXIERA; MCCARTHY, CONSOLIDATE ACTION WITH CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01248-DAD-GSA 15 Defendants. (Doc. 12) 16 17 Before the Court is a document titled, “Plaintiff’s request [to] reset settlement conference, 18 also all cases moved to related case 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA.” (Doc. 12.) In the document, 19 Plaintiff states, “[t]his is the exact same case that was filed with the courts in … 2017 …. case 20 number … 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA.” (Id.) In the latter case, Plaintiff and Defendants reached a 21 settlement and filed a join stipulation for dismissal on May 7, 2019. See Gradford v. Tiexiera, et 22 al., No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA (Doc. 87). Plaintiff seeks to “void” the settlement agreement 23 in that case, “reset” a settlement conference, and join the case and the present action with Case 24 No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA. (See Doc. 12.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion 25 to (1) vacate the settlement agreement and voluntary dismissal in Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al., No. 26 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and (2) consolidate 27 this action with Gradford v. Flores, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA, currently pending before the court, pursuant to Rule 42. 1 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 12). If Plaintiff seeks to vacate the voluntary 2 dismissal in Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, he must file a motion seeking relief in that case, 3 not initiate a new, identical case. In addition, the Court has issued findings and recommendations 4 to dismiss this action because it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 11.) The Court will 5 not consolidate this case with a pending case when it should instead be dismissed as time-barred 6 and duplicative. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may dismiss 7 “under § 1915(d) a complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’”) 8 (citations omitted). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Sheila K. Oberto 11 Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27