United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO POST SECURITY
AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BE DENIED [ECF No. 13]
Guillermo Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Defendants’ motion for Plaintiff to
post security as a vexatious litigant, filed June 20, 2019.
February 8, 2019, Defendants removed this action from the
Tuolumne County Superior Court.
February 22, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that
Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against only
Defendant Chavez. The Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity
to amend the complaint or notify the Court of his intent to
proceed only on the claim against Defendant Chavez.
to Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s February
22, 2019 screening order, Defendant Chavez filed the instant
motion to require Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious
litigant. (ECF No. 13.)
18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time
to file an opposition to Defendant Chavez’s motion.
(ECF No. 14.) On July 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff
thirty days to file an opposition and directed that Plaintiff
also file an amended complaint or notify the Court of intent
to proceed on the retaliation claim against Defendant Chavez
on or before August 24, 2019. (ECF No. 15.)
August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion to extend the
time to file an opposition and first amended complaint. (ECF
No. 16.) On August 21, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff
thirty days to file an opposition and first amended
complaint. (ECF No. 17.)
previously stated, on June 20, 2019, Defendant Chavez filed a
motion for Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious
litigant. The Court deems the motion suitable for ruling
without an opposition by Plaintiff.
seek to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, and
post security in the amount of $4, 640.00. Local Rule 151(b)
of the Eastern District of California, which provides:
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 amount as the Court may determine to be
appropriate. The provisions of Title 3A, part 2, of the
California Code of Civil Procedure, relating to vexatious
litigants, are hereby adopted as a procedural Rule
of this Court on the basis of which the Court may order the