Sanders v. MAGEC Metro Tatical Team et al

Filing 26

ORDER STRIKING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 21 15 and DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED STATUS REPORT, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/9/2012. (Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PHILLIP SANDERS,

11
12

CASE NO.

Plaintiff,

1:11-cv-184-LJO-MJS

ORDER STRIKING MISCELLANEOUS
MOTIONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
(ECF Nos. 15, 21, 23)

13
MAGEC METRO TACTICAL TEAM, et al.,
14
15
16

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN
AMENDED STATUS REPORT

Defendants.

/

17
18

Plaintiff Phillip Sanders initiated this action by filing a pro se Complaint on February

19

9, 2011, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.)

20

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.)

21
22

Plaintiff’s state court prosecution, which arises out of the same factual situation

23

giving rise to this action, is still active. Accordingly, the Court has determined, pursuant

24

to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), that it must abstain from acting in this

25

case until the state court prosecution is resolved. (Order, ECF No. 7.) Therefore, the

26

Court stayed this action pending resolution of the state court criminal charges against

27
-1-

1

Plaintiff. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a report with the Court every ninety-days

2

advising of the status of the criminal case. (Order at 5.)

3
4

Despite the stay in the action, Plaintiff and Defendant County of Fresno have filed
several motions, objections, and documents. Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s

5
6
7

directive to file status reports. Both of these issues are addressed below.
I.

PENDING MOTIONS

8

Since the Order staying Plaintiff’s action was filed, Plaintiff has filed a motion to

9

request monetary sanctions (ECF Nos. 15, 18, 19), a motion to correct docket error (ECF

10

No. 22), and a proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21). In response, Defendant

11

County of Fresno has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23.)

12
Given the current stay in this action, none of these papers were properly filed. The

13
14

Court hereby ORDERS that all outstanding filings, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s

15

motion to request monetary sanctions (ECF No. 15), Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF

16

No. 21), and Defendant County of Fresno’s motion to strike (ECF No. 23) be STRICKEN

17

from the record.

18

Further, the parties are ORDERED not to file anything further in this action, except

19
the required status reports, until the conclusion of Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings.
20
21
22

Any violation of this order will result in sanctions.
II.

STATUS REPORTS

23

In response to the Court’s order requiring status reports, Plaintiff has filed lengthy

24

papers going far beyond simply informing the Court of the status of his criminal charges.

25

On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a fifteen page document entitled “THIRD STATUS

26
27

UPDATE REPORT and request to correct court docket error”. (ECF No. 22.) The nature
-2-

1

and purpose of the latter document is not clear, but it is not a status report.

2

Plaintiff's next status report is due on January 25, 2012. Accordingly, Plaintiff is

3

ORDERED to file a status report on or before January 25, 2012, properly captioned and

4

advising the Court whether the subject criminal charges are still pending against Plaintiff,

5
6
7

whether the criminal trial has been scheduled and, if so, the scheduled trial date. The
report shall contain no other information. Violation of this Order will result in sanctions.

8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13

Dated:

14

ci4d6

January 9, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-