Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIEXIERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01783-NONE-SKO (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION

(Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute 

of limitations. (Doc. No. 11.) On March 4, 2020, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings 

and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.)

In his objections, plaintiff does not dispute that his claims are time-barred. Instead, he 

states that he “is attempting to re-open this case which is the exact same case . . . #1:17-cv00201-DAD-GSA.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that he does not intend to subject the present action 

to “screening . . . because this exact same case . . . was settled on or about May 6, 2019. . . . 

However, Plaintiff has the desire to resettle this case and all other related cases.” (Id. at 3.) The 

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

court notes that, on May 7, 2019, the parties in Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA filed a joint 

stipulation to voluntarily dismiss that action. See Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00201-

DAD-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2019) (Doc. No. 87).1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

proper analysis. Because plaintiff initiated this action on December 23, 2019, and the events 

underlying this action occurred on or before May 9, 2017 (see Doc. No. 1), this case is barred by 

the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions brought pursuant to § 1983 actions. See

Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, the court notes that plaintiff 

may not attempt to reopen a closed case by initiating a new, identical case. See Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may dismiss “under § 1915(d) a complaint ‘that 

merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’”) (citations omitted). If plaintiff seeks 

relief from his voluntary dismissal of Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, he must file a motion 

in that case seeking such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purposes of closure and then to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2