Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William J. Gradford
Plaintiff
McCarthy
Defendant
Tiexiera
Defendant

Document Text:

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; MCCARTHY,

Defendants.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN 

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00201-DAD-GSA AND 

CONSOLIDATE ACTION WITH CASE 

NO. 1:17-CV-01248-DAD-GSA

(Doc. 12)

Before the Court is a document titled, “Plaintiff’s request [to] reset settlement conference, 

also all cases moved to related case 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA.” (Doc. 12.) In the document, 

Plaintiff states, “[t]his is the exact same case that was filed with the courts in ... 2017 .... case 

number ... 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA.” (Id.) In the latter case, Plaintiff and Defendants reached a 

settlement and filed a join stipulation for dismissal on May 7, 2019. See Gradford v. Tiexiera, et 

al., No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA (Doc. 87). Plaintiff seeks to “void” the settlement agreement

in that case, “reset” a settlement conference, and join the case and the present action with Case 

No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA. (See Doc. 12.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion 

to (1) vacate the settlement agreement and voluntary dismissal in Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al., No. 

1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and (2) consolidate 

this action with Gradford v. Flores, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA, currently pending 

before the court, pursuant to Rule 42.

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 03/10/20 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

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 12). If Plaintiff seeks to vacate the voluntary 

dismissal in Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, he must file a motion seeking relief in that case, 

not initiate a new, identical case. In addition, the Court has issued findings and recommendations 

to dismiss this action because it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 11.) The Court will 

not consolidate this case with a pending case when it should instead be dismissed as time-barred

and duplicative. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2