Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00601/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00601-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NARENDRA SHARMA, ASSIGNEE OF 

SHREE SHIVA LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF REDDING, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00601 TLN DB

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 27, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the 

findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 25) and Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 26).

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-00601-TLN-DB Document 27 Filed 03/24/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2020 (ECF No. 24), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants City of Redding, Debra Wright, and James Wright’s May 7, 2019 Motion 

to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED;

3. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

The Court declines at this time to issue an order to show cause as to why sanctions should 

not be imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 11. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has 

filed multiple lawsuits concerning what appears to be the same or overlapping issues. Plaintiff is 

therefore cautioned that in addition to Rule 11 sanctions, the Eastern District’s Local Rule 151(b) 

adopts California’s “vexatious litigant” laws (see LR 151(b)), and that “vexatious litigant” 

sanctions could include: (1) entering a pre-filing order that limits the filing of new cases; (2) 

requiring security be posted to maintain cases; (3) limiting the number of pending motions 

plaintiffs may maintain in a single case; (4) imposing monetary sanctions; and (5) revoking 

plaintiffs’ online filing privileges. Kaighn v. Unites States, No. 2:16-cv-02117-KJM-CKD, 2017 

WL 1344370, at *2 (E.D. Cal., April 12, 2017).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00601-TLN-DB Document 27 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2