Sanders v. MAGEC Metro Tatical Team et al
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Motion To Obtain Montetary Sancitons, Remove Consolidated Case to Fresno County Superior Court and Remove the Stay Pending the Resolution of Plaintiff's Criminal Proceedings signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/24/2011. (Yu, L)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
10
11
12
PHILLIP SANDERS,
CASE NO.
1:11-cv-184-LJO-MJS
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO OBTAIN MONETARY SANCTIONS,
v.
REMOVE CONSOLIDATED CASE TO
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND
MAGEC METRO TACTICAL TEAM, et al., REMOVE THE STAY PENDING THE
RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFF’S CRIMINAL
Defendants.
PROCEEDINGS.
13
/ [ECF Nos. 15-16.]
14
15
16
Plaintiff Phillip Sanders initiated this action by filing a pro se Complaint on February
9, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2011, the Court issued an order staying the case while
17
18
Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings related to acts which are the subject of the present
19
complaint are pending in Fresno County Superior Court. (ECF No. 7.) The Court ordered
20
Plaintiff to update the Court every 90 days regarding the status of his criminal proceeding.
21
On April 8, 2011, a second Complaint, originally filed by Plaintiff in Fresno County
22
Superior Court, was removed by Defendants to this Court. See Sanders v. Magec Metro
23
Tactical Team, EDCA Case No. 1:11-cv-00596-AWI-MJS. On May 25, 2011, the Court
24
consolidated the matter with the present case and continued the stay put in place on April
25
26
27
1, 2011. EDCA Case No. 1:11-cv-00596-AWI-MJS, ECF No. 10.
On September 19, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff had
1
not filed a status report. (ECF No. 14.) In response to the order to show case, Plaintiff filed
2
two documents on October 5, 2011, one titled ““plaintiff object to court sanctions and
3
request award plaintiff moneys for court errors delaying plaintiff case missed scheduling
4
5
conference 7/14/11 and request move consolidated case back down to state level” and the
6
other titled, “second status update report and request court remove stay.” (ECF Nos. 15-
7
16.) The Court shall address each filing in turn.
8
In Plaintiff’s first filing he (1) objects to any sanctions from the Court, (2) requests
9
a monetary award from the Court, (3) and requests the Court remand the consolidated
10
case back to the Fresno County Superior Court. (ECF No. 15.) First, the Court is not going
11
12
13
to sanction Plaintiff since he did file a status report in response to the order to show cause.
(ECF No. 16.)
14
Second, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a monetary award. Plaintiff seeks
15
to recover fees for his attendance at a status conference scheduled on July 14, 2011. On
16
May 25, 2011, over a month before the scheduled conference, the Court consolidated and
17
stayed the action. EDCA Case No. 1:11-cv-00596-AWI-MJS, ECF No. 10. The order
18
directed that the case be administratively closed. The closing of the case placed Plaintiff
19
20
21
on notice that the hearing was no longer on calendar. Plaintiff is not entitled to damages
for his appearance at the hearing.
22
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the consolidated matter should be remanded back to
23
state court. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court is DENIED. To the extent
24
Plaintiff challenges any aspect to the procedure in which the action was removed, the
25
motion is untimely as it was filed over thirty days after the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C.
26
27
§ 1447(c). Further, if Plaintiff is claiming that the Complaint lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
1
the motion to remand is likewise denied. Plaintiff has clearly stated claims that his federal
2
due process and other constitutional rights were violated. While the complaint may contain
3
some state law claims, the fact that federal claims are included creates federal question
4
5
jurisdiction, and removal was proper.
6
In Plaintiff’s other filing, he provides a status report and requests the Court to
7
remove the stay in place during the pendency of his criminal proceedings. In light of the
8
information presented in his status report and Defendants’ assertion in their opposition that
9
the criminal case is still pending, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to lift the stay.
10
Plaintiff is instructed to file a third status report within 90 days of the service of this order,
11
12
and every 90 days thereafter until his criminal case is resolved.
ORDER
13
14
For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. Plaintiff’s request that he not be sanctioned is GRANTED;
16
2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED;
17
3. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the consolidated action to state court is DENIED;
18
4. Plaintiff’s motion to remove the stay is DENIED; and
19
20
5. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report with the Court not later than ninety
21
days after the service of this order, and every ninety days thereafter regarding the
22
status of his criminal charges.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
26
ci4d6
October 24, 2011
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?