(PC) Gradford v. Velasco et al, No. 1:2020cv00543 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's "Motion to Compell When Safe and Secure," and "Plaintiff's Motion for Order re Order Concerning Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" be Denied re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/6/2021. Referred to Unassigned DJ; Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. F. VELASCO and T. WEBSTER, Defendants. No. 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO COMPELL WHEN SAFE AND SECURE,” AND “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER RE ORDER CONCERNING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL” BE DENIED 16 (ECF Nos. 54, 57) 17 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”), a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis in this civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commenced this 20 action by filing a complaint on April 16, 2020. (ECF No. 1). On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed two 21 22 documents labeled motions: “Plaintiff’s motion to compell when safe and secure,” (ECF No. 54) (as in original), and “Plaintiff’s request order concerning notice for voluntary [42] dismissal,” 23 (ECF No. 57) (brackets in original). Because neither requests any relief, the Court recommends 24 denying both documents entitled motions. 25 The motion to compel states: 26 27 28 Plaintiff William J. Gradford, a former pretrial detainee pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a document entitled ‘Plaintiff request dismiss cases and all pending other cases volntar[i]ly claims and defendants’ (ECF No. 43) [42] Plaintiff request 1 motion to compel when safe and secure.” 1 2 (ECF No. 54) (as in original). 3 The other document is a handwritten copy of much of the Court’s April 19, 2021 order 4 concerning Plaintiff’s April 16, 2021 motion to dismiss. (Compare ECF No. 43 with ECF No. 5 57). Thus, it does not request any specific relief either. 6 As the Court has twice informed Plaintiff before, (see ECF Nos. 40 & 50), a document 7 that requests no specific relief is not a proper motion. See Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 8 120, 126 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990)) (“[T]he term ‘motion’ 9 generally means ‘an application made to a court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order 10 directing some act to be done in favor of the applicant.’ ” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th 11 ed.) (brackets omitted)); Tagle v. Nevada, 2017 WL 11496980, at *1 (D. Nev. June 14, 2017) 12 (“Tagle's Motion does not request any specific relief from the Court, let alone provide factual or 13 evidentiary support or legal authority for his motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.”); Tyler 14 v. Scott, 124 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1997) (table, unreported) (denying “a motion concerning 15 jurisdiction which does not request any form of relief”); Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs, 16 891 F. Supp. 1548, 1559 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (“The plaintiff's other motion … recapitulates 17 allegations from previous motions, but does not request relief, and is denied.”); United States v. 18 Moussaoui, 2002 WL 1987912, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2002) (“Because this 19 ‘motion’ does not request any specific relief, it is DENIED.”). 20 On April 30, 2021, the Court warned Plaintiff that several of his filings have been 21 frivolous and that further frivolous filings may result in sanctions against him, up to and including 22 dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 50 at 3-6). Again, these two filings are objectively 23 unreasonable. They are labeled motions but seek no specific relief. In addition, they appear in part 24 to be copies of the Court’s previous orders. In an abundance of caution, the Court will not 25 recommend issuing sanctions at this time, because it is possible that Plaintiff had not received the 26 Court’s April 30, 2021 warning when he filed the instant documents. However, Plaintiff is 27 warned that further frivolous filings may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this 28 action. 2 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that “Plaintiff’s motion to compell when 2 safe and secure” and “motion for order re order concerning notice of voluntary dismissal” (ECF 3 Nos. 54 & 57) be DENIED. 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 6 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file 7 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 10 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: May 6, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.