Cranford v. Okpala

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 45 Plaintiff's Motion for Monetary Sanctions and Injunctive Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/29/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ANTONIA OKPALA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS AND INJUNCTIVE
SANCTIONS
[ECF No. 45]

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions

19

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison

20

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

21
22
23

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for monetary sanctions and injunctive sanctions. On
July 22, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not responded to discovery. More specifically, Plaintiff

24

contends he has served a total of six sets of interrogatories. Defense counsel declares that to date only

25

one set of special interrogatories, which Defendant answered. (ECF No. 46, Declaration of James

26

Phillips at 2.)

27
28

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to respond to certain discovery requests,
Plaintiff’s motion is deficient. The moving party, such as plaintiff in this instance, bears the burden of
1

1

informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, which responses

2

are disputed, why the defendant’s responses are deficient or its objections not justified, and why the

3

information sought is relevant to the prosecution of the action. See Christ v. Blackwell, No. CIV-S-

4

10-0760, 2011 WL 3847165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-CV-05646,

5

2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). To satisfy the burden, Plaintiff must provide a

6

copy of the propounded request, as well as the disputed responses, and objections. Roberts v. Cate,

7

No. 2:08-cv-2624, 2011 WL 4405821, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2011); Nelson v. Runnels, No. CIV

8

S-06-1289, 2009 WL 211052, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009).

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

August 29, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2