(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, No. 1:19-cv-01783-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION 14 TIEXIERA, et al., (Doc. No. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute 22 of limitations. (Doc. No. 11.) On March 4, 2020, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings 23 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) 24 In his objections, plaintiff does not dispute that his claims are time-barred. Instead, he 25 states that he “is attempting to re-open this case which is the exact same case . . . #1:17-cv- 26 00201-DAD-GSA.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that he does not intend to subject the present action 27 to “screening . . . because this exact same case . . . was settled on or about May 6, 2019. . . . However, Plaintiff has the desire to resettle this case and all other related cases.” (Id. at 3.) The 1 | court notes that, on May 7, 2019, the parties in Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA filed a joint 2 | stipulation to voluntarily dismiss that action. See Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00201- 3 | DAD-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2019) (Doc. No. 87).! 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 5 || de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 6 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 7 || proper analysis. Because plaintiff initiated this action on December 23, 2019, and the events 8 || underlying this action occurred on or before May 9, 2017 (see Doc. No. 1), this case is barred by 9 | the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions brought pursuant to § 1983 actions. See 10 | Jackson vy. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, the court notes that plaintiff 11 | may not attempt to reopen a closed case by initiating a new, identical case. See Cato v. United 12 | States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may dismiss “under § 1915(d) a complaint ‘that 13 || merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims””) (citations omitted). If plaintiff seeks 14 | relief from his voluntary dismissal of Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, he must file a motion 15 | in that case seeking such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and, 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 21 purposes of closure and then to close this case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 3 Dated: _ March 11, 2020 aL Al 7 ae 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 | ' The court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).