IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 24, 2011
ELONZA JESSE TYLER,
MIKE E. KNOWLES, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge
Defendants move for an order of dismissal predicated on Plaintiffs failure to comply with previous orders of this court to furnish security.  The court has considered the motion, the points and authorities supporting that motion and the court's docket and finds as follows:
On December 30, 2010 this court entered an order  declaring plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Eastern District Local Rule 65.1-151(b) and Section 391(b)(1)-(3) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Court specifically ordered that plaintiff furnish security in the sum of eight hundred and fifty dollars ($850.00). Plaintiff did not comply with that order. Again, by order dated March 24, 2011 plaintiff was ordered to furnish security by April 14, 2011 or face dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. Consequently,
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendants' motion to dismiss this action is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FURTHERMORE. Plaintiff's motion for "relief from judgment rule 60 Fed. R. Civ. P"  which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration fails to set forth sufficient grounds for the court to reconsider it prior order. Plaintiff's only admission of excusable neglect is his "oversight in arranging the order of the documents sent to the Court." The arrangement of plaintiff documents had no bearing on the court's determination that plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant.
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.