Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01869/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01869-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. VON VILLAS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PALLARES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01869-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION REQUESTING CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 17)

Plaintiff, Robert A. Von Villas, is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 18, 

2013. (Doc. 1.) On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Notice Advising Court 

Defendants filed Motion of Removal, Request for Screening Order, and Request for Extension of 

Time to Respond Under Different Case Number." (Doc. 10.) That document was construed as a 

motion by Plaintiff requesting that judicial notice be taken in this case that he filed a notice of 

objection to a defense notice of removal and requested both a screening order and an extension to 

respond in Von Villas v. Pallares, E.D. Case No. 1:14-cv-01063-LJO-GSA1(hereinafter 

"Plaintiff's Other Action") -- which was denied on October 8, 2014 (hereinafter "the October 8th 

Order"). (Doc. 15.) 

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion Requesting 

 

1

Case No. 1:14-cv-01063-LJO-GSA was recently dismissed as duplicative of this action. 

Case 1:13-cv-01869-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/31/14 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

27

28

2

Clarification" in which he states that he received the October 8th Order, but that he "never filed 

said motion," believed the motion was filed by the Attorney General's Office, that he filed an 

objection to the Attorney General's motion, and now seeks clarification. (Doc. 17.) To the extent 

this order is able to do so, Plaintiff's motion requesting clarification is granted.

It appears that Plaintiff has confused the separateness/exclusivity of his multiple actions in

this Court. 

The October 8th Order issued in response to the document that Plaintiff filed in this action 

which was entitled "Notice Advising Court Defendants filed Motion of Removal, Request for 

Screening Order, and Request for Extension of Time to Respond Under Different Case Number" 

(hereinafter "Plaintiff's Motion for Notice"). (Doc. 10.) In Plaintiff's Motion for Notice, which 

was only two sentences long, it appeared that Plaintiff was requesting the Court in this action: (1) 

to take judicial notice in this action of the notice of removal that the defendants filed in Plaintiff's 

Other Action; (2) to issue a screening order in Plaintiff's Other Action; and (3) to issue an 

extension of time for Plaintiff to respond in Plaintiff's Other Action. These are the three issues 

that were addressed in the October 8th Order. 

It appears from Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Clarification, that when he filed Plaintiff's 

Motion for Notice, Plaintiff was merely attempting to bring the circumstances in Plaintiff's Other 

Action to the attention of the Court in this action and did not actually desire this Court to take 

judicial notice of anything in his Other Action, nor did he desire an order from this Court in this 

action in any way. If this was Plaintiff's desire, he was remiss in filing it as documents of any sort 

(including those filed in other actions) should only be filed in an action when necessary, such as 

"in connection with a motion for summary judgment, trial or the Court requests otherwise." (See 

Doc. 3, First Info O, 3:8-13.) There are only an extremely limited number of circumstances 

where filings in two separate actions are relevant to each other -- none of which apply here.2 

Plaintiff is urged to refrain from filing documents in this action other than motions seeking Court 

orders, or in opposition/response thereto, or as directed to do so by the Court.

 

2

Plaintiff's actions have neither been consolidated, nor found to be related; rather, they were 

found to be duplicative such that Plaintiff's Other Action has been dismissed.

Case 1:13-cv-01869-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/31/14 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

27

28

3

Plaintiff has filed his First Amended Complaint (see Doc. 16) which is in line for 

screening. Plaintiff need do nothing else until the First Amended Complaint has been screened 

and an order thereon has issued. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent accomplished by this order,

Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Clarification, filed October 22, 2014 (Doc. 17), is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-01869-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/31/14 Page 3 of 3