Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 81

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiff's 80 Motion for Court Order and Denying Plaintiff's 79 Motion for an Extension of the Discovery Deadline as a Sanction; Objections Due within Fifteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/30/2012. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 11/19/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE AS A
SANCTION

Defendants.
(ECF Nos. 79, 80)

14
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
15
16

Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order

17

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

19

first amended complaint, filed July 5, 2011, against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference

20

to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Defendants Gallagher and

21

Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and failure to protect in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel,

23

motion for a court order, and motion for a extension of time of the discovery cut-off date. (ECF Nos.

24

78, 79, 80.) Plaintiff is seeking an order directing prison officials to provide him with five hours of

25

access to the law library per week.

26

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v.

27

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires

28

Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and
1

1

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

2

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

3

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149

4

(2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

5

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

6

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

7

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

8

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the

9

court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

10

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

11

Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

12

Plaintiff has been informed in numerous orders that the Court cannot grant his requested relief

13

for access to the law library. As Plaintiff has previously been informed, the pendency of this action

14

provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff the injunctive relief he is seeking. Steel Co. v.

15

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-03, 107 (1998). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not

16

related to the underlying claims against Defendants Gallagher and Romero. Since the relief sought

17

would not remedy the violation of the Federal rights at issue here, the Court cannot grant the

18

requested relief.

19

All of Plaintiff’s motions have been denied on the same grounds. On October 1, 2011,

20

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order for physical access to the law library was denied. (ECF No. 22.)

21

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to provide him access to the law library was

22

denied. (ECF No. 30.) On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff was advised that further “motions for

23

injunctive relief that are baseless and filed in contravention of the applicable legal standards Plaintiff

24

has been provided with will result in the imposition of sanctions deemed appropriate by this Court.”

25

(Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Injunctive Relief 3:17-18, ECF No. 44.) Thus, all of

26

Plaintiff’s motions have been denied, and Plaintiff was forewarned that further such motions would

27

be grounds for sanctions.

28

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for a court order on April 6, 2012, and was
2

1

advised in the findings and recommendations filed April 16, 2012, that this action did not give the

2

Court jurisdiction to order the prison to give him access to the law library. (ECF Nos. 58, 62.) The

3

current motion is the second motion for a court order requesting access to the library that Plaintiff has

4

filed since being warned that sanctions would issue if he filed further motions in contravention of the

5

applicable legal standards.

6

The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper conduct.

7

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752,

8

766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). This includes the “inherent power

9

to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly

10

inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. V. Natural Beverage

11

Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wyle v. R. J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585,

12

589 (9th Cir. 1983)).

13

In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff wilfully continued to file baseless motions in

14

contravention of the applicable legal standards provided in Court orders and after being forewarned

15

that sanctions would be imposed. The Court finds that plaintiff’s conduct is bad faith abuse of the

16

judicial process. Fink, 239 F.3d at 991. The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions are

17

appropriate based upon Plaintiff’s continued disregard of the Court’s orders.

18

In considering the sanctions to be imposed, the Court evaluated available alternatives.

19

Plaintiff has brought this action alleging serious physical injuries due to the actions of Defendants,

20

and therefore, terminating sanctions would be too severe a penalty to impose at this juncture in the

21

action. Since Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, imposing monetary sanctions would be

22

of no consequence. In considering the sanctions that would be appropriate, the Court recommends

23

that Plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five day extension of the discovery cut-off date be denied as a

24

sanction for Plaintiff’s filing the current motion for a court order.

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, filed October 26, 2012, be denied; and

3

2.

As a sanction for bringing this motion, Plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five day

4

extension of the discovery deadline, filed October 26, 2012, be DENIED.

5

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

7

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

8

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

9

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

10

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

October 30, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4