Opinion
3:11-cv-00881-RCJ-WGC
11-26-2012
LINWOOD EDWARD TRACY, JR., Plaintiff, v. PAUL CAMACHO et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr. sued ten Defendants in pro se for unclear alleged civil rights violations. The Complaint, which was approximately 125 pages in length, was a disorganized collage of legal citations interspersed with confusing and often unintelligible allegations. More importantly, no causes of action were enumerated therein, and it was impossible in many instances to distinguish those legal theories intended to be pressed as causes of action from those intended only to be a part of the argumentation. Defendants moved to dismiss for several reasons: "failure to perfect service of process, failure to state a claim for relief, sovereign immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, qualified immunity and absolute immunity." The Court noted that until the Complaint was made intelligible, the Court could not analyze any of those arguments. The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), noting that "if the forthcoming amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2), the Court may dismiss without leave to amend for failure to comply with the Court's order."
Plaintiff had also filed several motions. First, Plaintiff asked the Court to "quash" its minute order of April 17, 2012. That minute order was a standard order warning pro se plaintiffs of the requirement to respond to dispositive motions. Plaintiff argued that the order should be quashed because I should recuse myself from the case. The Court denied the motion.
Second, Plaintiff asked me to recuse myself from the case. Plaintiff noted that I was a defendant in Case No. 3:11-cv-436. Several judges in this District are or were defendants in one or more of Plaintiff's cases. I was a defendant in the '436 Case. Judge Reed was a Defendant in Case No. 3:09-cv-355. Former Judge Sandoval was a defendant in Case No. 3:09-cv-238. I perceived no need to recuse myself.
Third, Plaintiff asked the Court to "quash" the motion to dismiss. That motion was denied.
Fourth, Plaintiff asked the Court to remove Attorney Holly A. Vance as Defendants' counsel. That motion was denied. Plaintiff identified no legitimate basis for disqualification, such as a conflict of interests due to any putative duty of confidentiality she may have to him.
Fifth and finally, Plaintiff asked the Court to "enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1983." He requested $2.8 billion in damages and interest because I have refused to recuse myself, as well as a refund of his $350 filing fee. The motion was denied.
Plaintiff then filed ten more motions. First, he asked the Court to set aside the motion to dismiss under Rule 60(b). Second, Plaintiff again asked me to recuse myself. Third and fourth, Plaintiff asked U.S. Attorney Bogden and Assistant U.S. Attorney Vance to "recuse." Fifth, Plaintiff asked the Court to "quash" the Government's motion for an extension of time. Sixth and seventh, Plaintiff again moved for Attorneys Bogden and Vance to recuse themselves. Eighth, Plaintiff asked Magistrate Judge Cobb to recuse himself. Ninth and tenth, Plaintiff moved to "quash" the Government's responses to his motions to reconsider the motion to dismiss and his (first) motion to disqualify Attorneys Bogden and Vance, respectively. The Court denied the motions. Plaintiff has asked the Court to reconsider. The motion consists of the same collage of unintelligible arguments already presented.
Plaintiff has also moved to amend, to "notice a default," and to "quash" a response to his motion for reconsideration. Those motions are denied.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 33), the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 35), the Motion to Notice a Default (ECF No. 36), and the Motion to Quash (ECF No. 49) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall accept no further filings in this case other than notices of appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________
ROBER C. JONES
United States District Judge