Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00022-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARROD MOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERESA CISNEROS, et al,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR MANDATE

(ECF No. 13 at 1-2)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

TO ACCELERATE PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 13 at 3-6)

The Court here addresses two motions Plaintiff has made in a single filing (ECF No. 13), 

which make the following separate requests: 1- motion for a mandate to “stop clerks collusion 

violating the due process of the proceeding.” ECF No. 13 at 1. In it, Plaintiff alleges that the 

Clerk’s Offices in the Central District of California and in this district are engaging in misconduct 

with respect to the pro per filing of documents and/or ensuring that the payments of his filing fees 

are accepted. See id. at 1. 2-motion for the Court to accelerate and expedite the alternative 

dispute resolution process and to compel Defendants to provide comprehensive point-by-point 

responses “to all allegations and evidence within ten (10) days. See id. ag 3-6. For the reasons 

stated below, these requests will be denied in their entirety.

MOTION FOR MANDATE AND TO ACCELERATE ADR PROCEEDINGS

A. Motion for Mandate

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 05/28/24 Page 1 of 4
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

With respect to the filings in this case,1 Moten v. Cisneros, No. 1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA, 

Plaintiff states that the filing fee in it has been paid, but he takes issue with the fact that in another 

case that he has filed in this district, Moten v. Veith, No. 1:24-cv-00068 KES CDB, “the clerks 

obstructed the payment,” and that such obstruction in his cases “has been consistent over nearly a 

year.” ECF No. 13 at 1-2. He claims that Clerk misconduct extends to the following Eastern 

District cases in which he is the named Plaintiff- 24cv00022; 24cv00043; 24cv00068; 

23cv01157- though Plaintiff states that this “submission is made in support of my case at hand”. 

Plaintiff claims that “this pattern of misconduct” by the Eastern District Clerks “exemplifies a 

disregard for due process and also reflects a continuous orchestrated conspiracy” and that the 

clerk’s office misconduct is “akin to modern-day slavery”. Plaintiff goes on to claim that 

recusal motions and objections to findings and recommendations “have been inconspicuously 

kept off the public PACER system to avoid scrutiny.” Id. at 2. As a result, Plaintiff argues, this 

has shown a “disregard for due process” and reflects “a continuous orchestrated conspiracy.” Id. 

He further alleges that “[t]he clerks have mimicked grievances previously raised by [me] through 

various petitions, showcasing systematic corruption and retaliatory practices within the judicial 

system.” Id. (brackets added).

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff requests the Court to “mandate an investigation into 

these constitutional violations and fix these conspiring acts.” ECF No. 13 at 2. He also 

respectfully requests the Court to intervene and “put an end to these due process violations and to 

ensure that justice is upheld.” Id.

B. Motion to Acceleration for an ADR in the Proceedings

In Plaintiff’s motion “to acceleration for an ADR in the proceedings”, Plaintiff lists both 

the instant Cisneros matter and another matter that he has before this Court – Moten v. Pheiffer, 

No. 1:24-cv-00043 JLT GSA – in the second case caption on its start page. See ECF No. 13 at 3 

(second case caption page). In it, Plaintiff requests the Court to not only accelerate the 

1

 Although Plaintiff in his motion references other cases, the Court only addresses his requests as 

they pertain to the instant case (see below). If Plaintiff desires that his motion(s) be considered in 

other cases he has before this Court then he needs to file them in those cases.

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 4
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

proceedings but also order Defendants to provide point-by-point “responses to the allegations”

within ten days. Id. at 3-6.

In support of the request, Plaintiff makes allegations of numerous “constitutional 

violations” asserting some of which have been captured on “body-worn camera footage”. ECF 

No. 13 at 4. He also wishes to have addressed at the ADR hearing an assertion of judicial 

misconduct and bias “exhibited” by the undersigned and Judge Thurston of this Court; claims of 

Clerk misconduct; and claims of institutional indifference which he asserts has led to him 

suffering “significant harm, including [his] contracting COVID-19.” Id. (bracket added). He 

argues that accelerating the proceedings in his Cisneros and Pheiffer matters will “prevent an 

unjust default judgment stemming from judicial and clerical misconduct.” Id. at 5.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Moten v. Cisneros, No. 1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA

1. Motion for Mandate to Stop Clerks’ Collusion

This request must be denied as it is totally unsupported by any verifiable facts or law, and

at present is no more than farfetched conjecture based almost totally upon unfounded assertions

of orchestrated conspiracies, corruption and retaliatory practices. 

Furthermore, with respect to motions and/or objections that Plaintiff has filed in this case, 

the Clerk’s Office has docketed those items. For instance, see ECF No. 12 (Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) 

motion). Plaintiff is advised that any motions that are currently outstanding in this case will be 

addressed in due course.

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff makes a general assertion that the Court is 

keeping motions that he has filed off the PACER docketing system, Plaintiff is informed that any 

and all documents he files in this case have been and will continue to be docketed by the Court 

Clerk’s office. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertions of “constitutional 

violations” in the motion are totally without merit and thus this motion will be denied.

2. Motion to Accelerate Proceedings

Plaintiff’s request that the Court accelerate these proceedings so that the matter can move 

to alternative dispute resolution, and to compel Defendants to provide detailed point-by-point 

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 05/28/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

responses within 10 days (see ECF No. 13 at 3-6), will also be denied as these requests are

premature given that Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that can be served on any specific 

Defendant (see, Screening order filed May 22, 2024, ECF No. 14).

B. Moten v. Pheiffer, No. 1:24-cv-00043 JLT GSA

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to have his requests/motions considered in the Moten 

v. Pheiffer, No. 1:24-cv-00043 JLT GSA (see, 24cv00022, ECF No. 13), such is denied. If 

Plaintiff wishes to have his requests/motions considered in the Pheiffer case, then he must file 

them in that case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for mandate (ECF No. 

13 at 2) and his request that this matter be accelerated (ECF No. 13 at 3-6) are both DENIED in 

their entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 05/28/24 Page 4 of 4