Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 80

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Sanctions (Document 79 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/17/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(Document 79)

16

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17
18

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

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

The parties have been granted leave to perform discovery limited to exhaustion.

21
22

On August 26, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Perez’s request for a fourteen-day
extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. According to Counsel, he prepared

23

draft responses on August 8, 2014, but was informed by the Litigation Coordinator that
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant Perez would be out on vacation until August 26, 2014, the date his responses were
due.
On September 15, 2014, the Court received a filing from Plaintiff in which he objects to
the request for an extension and asks that the Court impose monetary sanctions on Defendant
1

1

Perez, and his Counsel, for “their blatant insolence and obsurdity [sic].” ECF No. 79, at 2.

2

Plaintiff thinks that granting an extension based on Defendant Perez’s vacation plans is

3

“tantamount to the court granting Plaintiff an extension of time simply because he is too busy

4
5

watching T.V. in his cell which surely verges into the obsurd [sic].” ECF No. 79, at 2.
Plaintiff’s suggestion is not well-taken. The Court has wide discretion in determining

6
7
8
9

what is, and is not, good cause to support an extension of time. Defendant Perez was not
required to clear his vacation schedule with Counsel, or Plaintiff, prior to his departure. For both
parties, the Court takes into consideration all factors when determining whether to grant an

10

extension of time. Here, this was Defendant Perez’s first request for an extension, and he only

11

requested an additional fourteen days. That he may have been “reachable” while on vacation is

12

of no consequence. The Court strives to be sensible in its approach to litigation, despite

13

Plaintiff’s suggestion otherwise.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 17, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2