Opinion
23-cv-00981-HSG
10-31-2023
ELIJAH DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DAN PRATT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD NEW DEFENDANT AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 34
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Add Additional Defendants and for Relief from a Judgment or Order. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. The Court DENIES both motions.
I. MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff seeks to add Judge Ryu as a defendant to his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 33. However, this case is closed and there is no operative complaint to amend, so Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
Plaintiff moves the Court for relief under Rule 59 and 60. Dkt. No. 34. As with other of his recent motions for relief (all denied by this Court, Dkt. No. 32), Plaintiff appears to take issue with Judge Ryu's involvement in this now-closed action. But Judge Ryu's role in screening Plaintiff's complaint and issuing a Report and Recommendation was clearly proper. Further, as the Court has explained, as a matter of law, all plaintiffs bringing qui tam cases must have counsel. See Dkt. No. 13. And appointment of counsel is discretionary and should only be done in exceptional circumstances not present here. See Dkt. No. 32. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion, Dkt. No. 34.
In light of Plaintiff's serial motion filing in this closed case, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff not to file (and the Clerk not to accept) anything on the docket other than an amended complaint that complies with the Court's orders at Dkt. Nos. 25, 17, and 13. The Court cautions Plaintiff that continuing to file anything other than a compliant amended complaint will result in the revocation of his e-filing privileges.
IT IS SO ORDERED.