(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Garrison Jones, No. 2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. Velocity Technology Solutions, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In a previous order, this court dismissed plaintiff Garrison Jones’s first amended 18 | complaint with leave to amend in part. See generally Prev. Order (Sept. 28, 2021), ECF No. 98. 19 | Jones moves to vacate that order. See generally Mot. Vacate, ECF No. 128. The defendants 20 | oppose the motion, and Jones has replied. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 131; Replies, ECF 21 | Nos. 133, 134, 135, 136. The matter was submitted without a hearing. 22 The court construes the motion as a request for reconsideration of a non-final order under 23 | this court’s inherent authority. See City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 24 | 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001). The motion is denied. See Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun 25 | Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1070 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A] 26 | party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 27 | recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 28 | decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

] Jones is not represented by an attorney in this action. Federal courts frequently forgive 2 | procedural missteps and inartful pleading by those who are not represented by attorneys. See, 3 | e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This leniency helps to ensure 4 | actions are resolved justly on their merits whenever possible. See McGuckin v. Smith, 5 | 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 6 | 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). But everyone is “bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. 7 | Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Ifa plaintiff repeatedly disregards the 8 | court’s orders and procedural rules, the case may be dismissed. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 | 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 Jones has filed many duplicative motions and other documents without permission in 11 | contravention of this court’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His filings are 12 | long, inflammatory, and difficult to understand. His current motion illustrates this trend. It 13 | includes more than forty pages of single-spaced text and discursive allegations of fraud and lies 14 | by the defendants and their counsel. ECF No. 128. He responded to the defendants’ five-page 15 | opposition with four overlong replies. See ECF Nos. 133, 134, 135, 136. The most recent 16 | includes more than forty pages of single-spaced text. See generally ECF No. 136. The court will 17 | strike or disregard similar filings and motions in the future. Continued failures to comply with 18 | court orders and procedural rules may lead to sanctions, including dismissal without leave to 19 | amend. 20 This order resolves ECF No. 128. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: May 10, 2022. [\ (] 23 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE