Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 109 Motion for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/28/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS GOOLSBY, 12 Case No. 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 13 v. 14 15 16 (Document 109) J. GENTRY, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 21 against Defendants Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman 22 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 23 On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions in the amount of $48.10. 24 Defendants did not file an opposition and the matter is suitable for decision. Local Rule 230(l). 25 Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel disclosures is granted, “the court 26 must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the 27 motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including 28 1 1 attorney’s fees. Discovery sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and when 2 the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. Fair Housing of Marin v. 3 Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002). 4 In his request, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $48.10, which is the amount he 5 contends will cover his out-of-pocket expenses in bringing the October 17, 2014, motion to 6 compel. Plaintiff is correct that the Court granted many of his requests. Although the Court 7 ordered Defendants to provide further responses, it does not necessarily mean that Plaintiff is 8 entitled to sanctions. Plaintiff served almost more than 150 discovery requests, and the Court 9 finds nothing in the way in which Defendants responded to warrant sanctions. 10 Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ counsel refused to talk to Plaintiff or otherwise 11 attempt to resolve the discovery disputes. However, while meeting and conferring is encouraged, 12 it is not required in prisoner cases. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis May 28, 2015 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?