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)
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?