Balzarini v. Lewis et al
Filing
50
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be DENIED re 25 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/12/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ST. MICHAEL BALZARINI,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
KYLE LEWIS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 40)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
18
I.
19
Plaintiff St. Michael Balzarini (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
Procedural Background
20
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 30, 2013. This action
21
proceeds against Defendants Ulit and Agtarap for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in
22
violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while Plaintiff was housed at
23
Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison.
24
On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of
25
Civil Procedure 11 and 37. (ECF No. 40.) On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to
26
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff did not reply. Plaintiff’s motion for
27
sanctions has been submitted upon the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).
28
///
1
1
II.
Motion for Sanctions
2
Plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37.
A. Rule 11 Sanctions
3
Plaintiff asserts that Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed for defense counsel’s “reckless
4
5
misstatements of law and fact” in objections and meaningless filings with this Court.” (ECF No. 40,
6
p. 2.) Plaintiff contends that defense counsel needs to quit filing “frivolous claims and motions” and is
7
acting like a “1st Year law Student, by citing decisions that have ‘NO Weight’ as precedent[], No
8
Authority!” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defense counsel improperly cited unpublished cases.
Defendants counter that Plaintiff has failed to describe the specific conduct that is alleged to
9
10
violate Rule 11 as required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Defendants further contend that Plaintiff’s
11
vague allegations are insufficient to provide notice of the alleged violations critical to a motion under
12
Rule 11.
“Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of ‘reasonable
13
14
inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not
15
interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. F.B.I., &57
16
F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,
17
393, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990)).
In this instance, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and do not demonstrate that Defendants or
18
19
defense counsel have made baseless or frivolous filings for an improper purpose in this action.
20
Indeed, Plaintiff has not specifically identified any misstatements or objectionable filings as required
21
by Rule 11. Fed. R. 11(c)(2) (motion for sanctions must describe the specific conduct that allegedly
22
violates Rule 11(b)). Insofar as Plaintiff complains about citation to unpublished cases, Plaintiff has
23
not identified any unpublished cases, nor has he directed the Court to any filing by Defendants that
24
contain such citations.
For these reasons, the Court finds no basis for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against
25
26
Defendants or defense counsel.
27
///
28
///
2
B. Rule 37 Sanctions
1
2
3
4
5
6
Plaintiff also seeks the imposition of discovery sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b). Specifically, Plaintiff requests that default judgment be entered against Defendants.
Rule 37(b) provides for the imposition of sanctions based on a party’s failure to obey a court
order to provide or permit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
Here, as Defendants correctly note, Plaintiff does not and cannot identify a discovery order that
7
Defendants purportedly violated. According to the docket, the Court has not issued any orders
8
requiring Defendants to provide or permit discovery. Therefore, sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) are
9
not appropriate or warranted.
10
III.
11
For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
12
13
Conclusion and Recommendation
sanctions, filed November 12, 2014, be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
15
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
16
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
17
Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
18
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on
19
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d
20
1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 12, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
3
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?