Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 72 Motion to Compel as Moot and DENYING Request for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/25/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv01773 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(Document 72)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

20
21
22

on October 25, 2011.
This action is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims
against Defendants Holland, Steadman, Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and

23

Holman.
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending.
On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for discovery under Rule 56(d).
On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Holland to produce
documents related to his Rule 56(d) discovery. Defendant opposed the motion on August 4,
1

1
2
3
4
5

2014, and indicated that she served supplemental responses which included the sections of the
requested documents pertaining to inmate appeals.
Indeed, on August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed his reply and explained that he had received
“all needed documents as far as the Rule 56(d).” ECF No. 78, at 1. Plaintiff received the
supplemental responses on August 7, 2014. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore DENIED

6
7
8
9
10

AS MOOT.
Regardless of Defendant’s supplemental response, however, Plaintiff urges the Court to
impose sanctions against Defendant for failing to initially comply with discovery.
In Defendant Holland’s initial responses, Defendant Holland indicated that Plaintiff had

11

access to the requested documents in the prison law library. In the opposition, Defendant

12

Holland acknowledged that the assumption was “incorrect,” because prison law libraries only

13

had current versions of Title 15 and the Department of Operations Manual. ECF No. 77, at 2.

14

Plaintiff believes that Defendant Holland simply lied in the initial responses and requests

15

that the Court impose sanctions because he was forced to file a motion to compel. Discovery

16

sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and when the violation is due to

17
18
19

willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d
899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002). Despite Plaintiff’s belief, there is no indication that Defendant Holland
acted in bad faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

20
21
22
23

Pursuant to the May 8, 2014, order, any supplemental opposition shall be due within
thirty (30) days of receiving responses to discovery. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due
within fourteen (14) days of service of the supplemental opposition.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 25, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2