- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, No. 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO AUTHENTICATE WITNESS STATEMENTS BE DENIED, WITHOUT 14 F. VELASCO and T. WEBSTER, PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 37) 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 17 REQUEST FOR LEAVE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 (ECF No. 39) 19 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”), a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se 22 and in forma pauperis in this civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commenced this 23 action by filing a complaint on April 16, 2020. (ECF No. 1). On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 24 document entitled “request as to authenticate witnesses signed statements attached to original 25 complaint and submit into evidence (admissible).” (ECF No. 37). On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff 26 filed a Request for Leave. The Court construes both filings as motions. (ECF No. 39). For the 27 following reasons, the Court recommends denying both. 28 /// 1 I. MOTION TO AUTHENTICATE WITNESS SIGNED STATEMENTS 2 Plaintiff’s motion appears to request that the Court authenticate and find admissible 3 several signed affidavits. Such a request is premature. There is no current need to use evidence in 4 this matter. Dispositive motions are due on May 14, 2021 and trial has not yet been set. (ECF No. 5 29). Plaintiff has not sought to introduce any evidence at this time, nor have Defendants objected 6 to any. Accordingly, the Court recommends denying the motion without prejudice. 7 II. REQUEST FOR LEAVE 8 The Request for Leave requests no specific relief. Therefore, it is not a proper motion and 9 the Court recommends denying it without prejudice. See Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 10 126 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990)) (“[T]he term ‘motion’ 11 generally means ‘an application made to a court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order 12 directing some act to be done in favor of the applicant.’ ” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th 13 ed.) (brackets omitted)); Tagle v. Nevada, 2017 WL 11496980, at *1 (D. Nev. June 14, 2017) 14 (“Tagle's Motion does not request any specific relief from the Court, let alone provide factual or 15 evidentiary support or legal authority for his motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.”); Tyler 16 v. Scott, 124 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1997) (table, unreported) (denying “a motion concerning 17 jurisdiction which does not request any form of relief”); Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs, 18 891 F. Supp. 1548, 1559 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (“The plaintiff's other motion … recapitulates 19 allegations from previous motions, but does not request relief, and is denied.”); United States v. 20 Moussaoui, 2002 WL 1987912, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2002) (“Because this 21 ‘motion’ does not request any specific relief, it is DENIED.”). 22 III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request to 24 authenticate (ECF No. 37) and request for leave (ECF No. 39) be DENIED, WITHOUT 25 PREJUDICE. 26 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 28 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file 1 | written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 3 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 4 | F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7) Dated: _ April 16, 2021 [Je hey 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00543
Filed Date: 4/16/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024