Caruso v. Johnson et al

Filing 372

ORDER ADOPTING 364 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 344 Motion for Sanctions signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/11/2022. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GINA CARUSO,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 1:15-cv-00780-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF Nos. 344, 364)
OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
SANCTIONS

12
Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights

13
14

action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15

636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 350).
On February 28, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule

16
17

of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (ECF No. 344). On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed

18

her opposition, in which she requested attorney fee sanctions under Rule 11. (ECF No. 347). On

19

May 24, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations,

20

recommending that “Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions under Rule 11 be denied,” that

21

“Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 be denied,” and that

22

“Plaintiff’s request for attorney fee sanctions under Rule 11 be denied.” (ECF No. 364, pgs. 13-

23

14).

24
25
26

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

27

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on May 24, 2022, are adopted in full;

3

2.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions under Rule 11 is denied;

4

3.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is denied; and

5

4.

Plaintiff’s request for attorney fee sanctions under Rule 11 is denied.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2022
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2