Wade v. Gilliland
- William Alsup
- 3:10-cv-00425
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wade v. Gilliland, Judge Alsup denied Wade’s motion to vacate a pre-filing order, rejecting his claim that the court lacked power to impose it.
Elroy K. Wade, whose challenge to the 2010 pre-filing order was denied; the order remained in place.
What happened
Elroy K. Wade, who was representing himself, filed his third challenge to a 2010 pre-filing order in Wade v. Gilliland. The order required preliminary review of his proposed complaints, and Wade claimed the court lacked authority under the All Writs Act to impose it.
Wade previously challenged the order in two motions for injunctive relief, which the court denied. He then asked the court to vacate the order as legally invalid under Rule 60(b)(4).
Judge William Alsup denied the motion. He relied on reasons stated in the court’s 2019 order, which the court of appeals affirmed, and on a prior court of appeals decision. The order said Wade could submit a non-frivolous, plausible complaint for preliminary review.
The detailed version
- Wade v. Gilliland · No. 3:10-cv-00425
- William Alsup
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Elroy K. Wade, a plaintiff representing himself, was subject to a 2010 pre-filing order. The opinion describes Wade as a vexatious litigant. He had previously filed two motions for injunctive relief challenging the order’s validity and constitutionality; the court denied both motions in 2019 and 2020. The court states that the court of appeals affirmed the 2019 ruling.
Wade filed a third motion challenging the order. This time, he sought to vacate it as “void” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which permits relief from a judgment or order that is legally void. Although he used a different procedural vehicle, the court said the substance of his argument remained that it lacked authority under the All Writs Act to impose the pre-filing order.
Issue
Whether Wade’s 2010 pre-filing order should be vacated because the court lacked power under the All Writs Act to impose it.
Court’s ruling
Judge William Alsup held that Wade’s argument was without merit. The court relied on the reasons given in its 2019 order and on the court of appeals’ decision in Wade v. Acosta, 727 F. App’x 454 (9th Cir. 2018). The court denied Wade’s motion to vacate.
Effect of the order
The 2010 pre-filing order remained in place. The court stated that Wade could submit a non-frivolous and plausible complaint for preliminary review. The opinion does not state any separate relief granted against or denied to the individual defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.