Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office
ORDER Requiring Response From Kern County Sheriff's Office to 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/7/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-EPG (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM
KERN COUNTY SHERRIFF’S OFFICE TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF NO. 63)
Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As described below, Plaintiff has filed what
the Court construes as a motion for sanctions claiming that Kern County Sherriff’s Office
(“KCSO”) misrepresented that it did not have responsive information in the form of any address,
current or former, for a former employee.
As background, on July 7, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a
subpoena upon Kern County Sherriff’s Office by the United States Marshal without prepayment
of costs. (ECF No. 51). Plaintiff had requested the issuance of a subpoena upon the Kern County
At the time of the incidents alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff was detained at Kern County Jail. He is now
incarcerated at FCI Marianna.
Sherriff’s Office “for Deputy Gonzalez’s full name and last known address” in order to locate
Deputy Gonzalez for service on the complaint. (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff completed and returned
the subpoena and form USM-285 (ECF No. 52), and the Court directed the United States
Marshals Service to serve the subpoena. (ECF No. 53).2
On November 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion for sanctions.
(ECF No. 63). According to Plaintiff, as defendant Gonzalez’s former employer, KCSO was not
being truthful when it represented that it lacked any an address for defendant Gonzalez. Plaintiff
argues that KCSO would need an address from defendant Gonzalez for payment, tax, and other
legal purposes. While Plaintiff does not state what, if any, information was provided to him, the
Court notes that KCSO has represented to this Court that it “does not have a past or current
residence address for the formerly employed Deputy.” (ECF No. 59, p. 2). Plaintiff asks the
Court to sanction KCSO for this statement because Plaintiff claims it is not possible that KCSO
lacks any address, past or present, for this former employee.
Given Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and Plaintiff’s challenge to KCSO’s claim that it
has no address whatsoever for Deputy Gonzalez, the Court will require KCSO to file a response
to Plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT KCSO has twenty-one
days from the date of service of this order to respond to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 63), in
particular to the assertion that, as defendant Gonzalez’s former employer, KCSO should have an
address for defendant Gonzalez.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 7, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KCSO initially failed to respond to the subpoena. KCSO eventually filed a motion with the Court
requesting additional time because “Through an apparent miscommunication between KCSO and its counsel the
Office of Kern County Counsel (hereinafter “KCCO”) . . . a response to Plaintiff’s subpoena was not served in a
timely fashion.” (ECF No. 59, p. 1). On October 17, 2017, the Court granted KCSO’s request for an additional
fourteen days to respond to the subpoena. (ECF No. 60).
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?