Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. ESPINOSA,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-1192 MCE GGH PS

vs.

SCOTT MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 4, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed untimely objections on

May 11, 2007, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections, and they were considered by the

district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 92 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 4, 2007, are ADOPTED; 

2. The following pre-filing review order is entered based on the court’s January

26, 2007 order and this court’s December 15, 2004 vexatious litigant order in Espinosa v.

Wheeler, Civ. S. 04-0203 MCE GGH PS: (1) Plaintiff shall not initiate any further pro se action

in this court unless the pleadings initiating the action are accompanied by a declaration under

penalty of perjury that explains why plaintiff believes he has meritorious claims. The declaration

shall include a list of all previous actions plaintiff has filed in this or any court, identifying

named defendants and all claims made in the previous actions. Plaintiff shall certify that the

defendants named in the proposed action have never before been sued by plaintiff, or

alternatively that any claims against previously sued defendants are not related to previous

action[s]. The declaration shall also state that the claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith,

and that plaintiff has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and the investigation

supports his claim(s). Finally, a copy of this order shall be attached to any application. (2) The

Clerk shall not file or lodge any action submitted pro se by plaintiff unless it is accompanied by

the required declaration and a copy of the instant order; any such incomplete filings shall be

returned to plaintiff without further action of the court. (3) If plaintiff files a pro se action

accompanied by the required declaration, the Clerk shall open the matter as a miscellaneous case

to be considered by the General Duty Judge of this court. The judge will issue necessary orders

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 92 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

after making a determination whether the case is in fact related to a previous case filed by

plaintiff, and whether it is non-frivolous.

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: June 14, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 92 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 3