Williams v. Marsh ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHKEEM WILLIAMS, No. 1:19-cv-00309-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 14 RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING J. MARSH #018609 CALIFORNIA DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE 15 HIGHWAY PATROL, PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO POST 16 Defendant. SECURITY 17 (Doc. Nos. 68, 69) 18 19 Plaintiff Ahkeem Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On June 18, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 (Doc. No. 68) recommending the denial of defendant J. Marsh’s motion to declare plaintiff a 24 vexatious litigant and require plaintiff to post security pursuant to Local Rule 151(b) (Doc. No. 25 60). The findings and recommendations were served upon the defendant and contained notice 26 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 68 27 at 9.) On July 1, 2020, defendant filed objections. (Doc. No. 69) 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendant’s 3 objections, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by 4 the record and by proper analysis. 5 Defendant first objects that the “Magistrate Judge did not apply the correct standard in 6 determining whether plaintiff was vexatious.” (Doc. No. 69 at 1.) Relying in part on Local Rule 7 151(b), defendant argues that the magistrate judge erred by applying federal law, as opposed to 8 the California state law definition, to determine vexatiousness. (Doc. No. 69 at 1–2.) Local Rule 9 151(b) states: 10 On its own motion or on motion of a party, the Court may at any time order a party to give a security, bond, or undertaking in such 11 amount as the Court may determine to be appropriate. The 12 provisions of Title 3A, part 2, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, are hereby adopted as a 13 procedural Rule of this Court on the basis of which the Court may order the giving of a security, bond, or undertaking, although the 14 power of the Court shall not be limited thereby. 15 16 As the magistrate judge and numerous decisions within this district have concluded, Local Rule 17 151(b) does not change the general rule that this court “looks to federal law for the definition of 18 vexatiousness”; it simply “directs the Court to look to state law for the procedure in which a 19 litigant may be ordered to furnish security.” Goolsby v. Gonzales, No. 1:11-cv-00394-LJO- 20 GSA-PC, 2014 WL 2330108, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2014), report and recommendation 21 adopted, 2014 WL 3529998 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2014); see also Shehee v. Redding, No. 1:14-cv- 22 00706-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 1220766, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019), report and 23 recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2420153 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Hammler v. Clark, No. 24 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 6799850, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019), report and 25 recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 870173 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020); Gonzales v. Podsakoff, 26 No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC), 2018 WL 1316890, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018), report 27 and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 2939087 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2018); Darden v. Mechael, 28 No. 1:17-cv-00505-LJO-SAB (PC), 2018 WL 2284176, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2018), report wOAOe INN SINNER oe POI OP Te VM VI 1 | and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3134864 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2018); Fields v. Patterson, 2 | No. 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG-PC, 2016 WL 1162083, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016), report 3 | and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4417686 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2016); Smith v. Officer 4 | Sergent, No. 2:15-cv-0979 GEB DB P, 2016 WL 6875892, at *2 (E.D. Cal. November 21, 2016). 5 | Accordingly, defendant’s first objection is denied. 6 Defendant’s second, related objection asserts that the magistrate judge erred by not 7 | “requiring Plaintiff to post a security bond . . . because Defendant failed to show that Plaintiff 8 || was vexatious according to the federal standard.” (Doc. No. 69 at 5.) Defendant argues that 9 | “since the federal standard does not apply, the Magistrate Judge abused her discretion in finding 10 | that requiring a security bond against an indigent plaintiff was improper.” (Doc. No. 69 at 6.) 11 | This objection fails for the same reason defendant’s first objection fails: the federal standard is 12 | controlling and it has not been met in this case. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 68) are 15 adopted in full; and 16 2. Defendant’s motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and require plaintiff to 17 post security (Doc. No. 69) is denied. 18 | IT Is SO ORDERED. _ 19 j)2A# Dated: _ August 14, 2020 wen!" Soe 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28