Baker v. Gipson et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING 37 Motion for Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/24/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT G. BAKER ,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)
ORDER
DENYING
SANCTIONS

MOTION

FOR

v.
(ECF No. 37)
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The action

19

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference

20

claim. (ECF No. 11.)

21

Default initially was entered against Defendant Kitt. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant

22

moved to set aside the entry of default (ECF No. 19), and the motion was granted (ECF

23

No. 23). Thereafter, Defendant answered the complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a

24

motion in opposition to the answer. (ECF No. 30.) The motion was stricken as improper

25

and unauthorized. (ECF No. 36).

26

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 20, 2015 motion for sanctions. (ECF No.

27

37.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is

28
1

1

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

2

II.

ARGUMENTS

3

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against

4

defense counsel, Defendant, and an individual named Elizabeth Statler, who filed a

5

declaration in this action in support of Defendant’s motion to set aside default. Plaintiff

6

claims that Defendant’s and Ms. Statler’s declarations, submitted with the motion to set

7

aside default, contained false statements. Specifically, although Ms. Statler claimed to

8

have contacted an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance to request representation

9

for Defendant in this action, Plaintiff has communicated with an entity called Premier

10

Physician’s Alliance who denies any knowledge as to Defendant or this action. In

11

support, Plaintiff submits a letter from the administrator of Premier Physician’s Alliance.

12

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion constitutes an untimely opposition to the

13

motion to set aside default and, in any event, fails to establish grounds for sanctions.

14

Defendant also objects to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff.

15

III.

ANALYSIS

16

The time for Plaintiff to challenge the credibility of Defendant’s and Ms. Statler’s

17

declarations was in his opposition to the motion to set aside default. He filed no such

18

opposition. His belated attempt to oppose the motion now, through a request for

19

sanctions, is not viewed favorably by the Court.

20

In any event, the letter submitted by Plaintiff does not provide a basis for

21

sanctions. Defendant Kitt stated, in his declaration in support of the motion to set aside

22

default, that he was associated with an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance in the

23

area of Bakersfield, California. The letter supplied by Plaintiff, from an administrator

24

denying knowledge of this action, is from an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance in

25

Abilene, Texas. It is apparent that the letter supplied by Plaintiff is not from the correct

26

entity. Furthermore, Ms. Statler submitted a declaration in opposition to the instant

27

motion clarifying that the entity at issue here is in Bakersfield.

28
2

1

Nothing submitted by Plaintiff calls into question the veracity of Defendant’s or

2

Ms. Statler’s declarations or indicates that the motion to set aside default was lacking in

3

evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

4

IV.

5
6

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 37) is HEREBY

DENIED.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 24, 2015

/s/

10

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3