(PS) Ingram v. Grant Joint Union High School District, et al, No. 2:2008cv02490 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 65 66 67 68 November 9, 2009 motions aredenied and will not be placed on the court's calendar for hearing. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any motion or request of any kind in this action until the undersigned has issued findings and recommendations addressing defendants' submitted motions to dismiss, to strike, and for sanctions. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's repeated violations of applicable rules and court orders. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Ingram v. Grant Joint Union High School District, et al Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHADERICK A. INGRAM, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2490 FCD DAD PS vs. GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 / Pursuant to a court order filed October 14, 2009, plaintiff is prohibited from filing 17 in this case any document seeking summary judgment or noticing a hearing on summary 18 judgment, absent a court order granting him leave to do so. On November 9, 2009, plaintiff filed 19 motions for “Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60,” 20 for “Findings and Conclusions and Judgment on Partial Findings Pursuant to Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure 52,” for “Appealing Judgment for Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure 73,” and for “Requests for Admission Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36 23 and Local Rule 36-250,” all noticed for hearing on December 11, 2009. By this order, the 24 motions are denied. 25 Plaintiff’s purported Rule 60 motion, which is addressed to “Defendants Social 26 Security Administration; Van Nguyen” rather than to the defendants in this action, is a Rule 60 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 motion in name only. In a memorandum of points and authorities, under the heading “Standard 2 Procedure for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60,” plaintiff paraphrases the first sentence of 3 Rule 60(b) but fails to specify any ground for relief and fails to identify any order from which he 4 seeks relief. Plaintiff presents no analysis or discussion of Rule 60 but instead argues the merits 5 of his claims and prays for judgment against defendants in an amount up to $300,000,000.00 and 6 for costs of suit. This motion fails to establish any basis for relief under Rule 60. 7 Plaintiff’s purported Rule 52 motion is equally frivolous. The rule applies to 8 cases that have been tried without a jury or with an advisory jury, but this case has not been tried. 9 Indeed, the case remains at the pleading stage.1 If this case proceeds to trial, Rule 52 will not 10 apply because defendants’ notice of removal was accompanied by a demand for trial by jury. 11 Plaintiff presents no analysis or discussion of Rule 52 but instead argues the merits of his claims 12 and prays for judgment against defendants in an amount up to $300,000,000.00 and for costs of 13 suit. This motion fails to establish any basis for findings and conclusions or for judgment on 14 partial findings under Rule 52. 15 Plaintiff’s purported Rule 73 motion is frivolous as well. The rule applies to cases 16 in which all parties have consented to trial before a magistrate judge, but the parties in this case 17 have not consented to trial before a magistrate judge. Moreover, a party cannot appeal a 18 judgment entered pursuant to Rule 73 until a judgment has been entered, and no judgment has 19 been entered in this case. In addition, a party who wishes to appeal a Rule 73 judgment does so 20 by filing a notice of appeal, not by filing a motion. Plaintiff presents no analysis or discussion of 21 Rule 73 but instead argues the merits of his claims and prays for judgment against defendants in 22 an amount up to $300,000,000.00 and for costs of suit. This motion fails to establish any basis 23 for an appeal pursuant to Rule 73. 24 ///// 25 1 26 At the present time, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint is submitted for decision. 2 1 Plaintiff’s purported Rule 36 motion is frivolous because it does not arise from a 2 request for admissions or any other discovery request. Plaintiff presents no analysis or discussion 3 of Rule 36 but instead argues the merits of his claims and prays for judgment against defendants 4 in an amount up to $300,000,000.00 and for costs of suit. This motion fails to establish any basis 5 for an order pursuant to Rule 36. 6 Although plaintiff’s four motions are variously named, all of the motions seek the 7 same relief sought in plaintiff’s defective summary judgment motions. As such, plaintiff’s 8 motions have been filed in violation of the order precluding plaintiff from filing motions for 9 judgment in his favor. In addition, the submitting of motions based on rules that do not apply is 10 a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Plaintiff has been advised that by filing a 11 document a party is certifying that he conducted a reasonable inquiry, is not presenting the 12 document for any improper purpose, and is offering legal contentions supported by applicable 13 law along with factual contentions that have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The 14 undersigned finds that plaintiff’s four motions were filed for the improper purposes of (1) 15 flouting the court’s October 14, 2009 order, (2) harassing defendants as well as the court, (3) 16 causing delay, and (4) increasing the cost of this litigation for defendants and the court. The 17 undersigned also finds that plaintiff filed his motions without conducting a reasonable inquiry 18 into the application of the federal and local rules relied upon, failed to present motions supported 19 by applicable law, and failed to present factual contentions that have evidentiary support. 20 As a sanction for the filing of multiple frivolous motions in an apparent attempt to 21 circumvent the court’s order precluding the filing of summary judgment motions, the court will 22 now preclude plaintiff from filing any motion or request of any kind in this action until the 23 undersigned has issued findings and recommendations addressing defendants’ submitted motions 24 to dismiss, to strike, and for sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Local Rule 11-110. 25 ///// 26 ///// 3 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s November 9, 2009 motions (Doc. Nos. 65, 66, 67, and 68) are 3 denied and will not be placed on the court’s calendar for hearing. 4 2. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any motion or request of any kind in this 5 action until the undersigned has issued findings and recommendations addressing defendants’ 6 submitted motions to dismiss, to strike, and for sanctions. Failure to comply with this order will 7 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s repeated 8 violations of applicable rules and court orders. 9 DATED: November 18, 2009. 10 11 12 13 DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.prose\ingram2490.ord.motsden 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
]]>
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.
