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