Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 74 Motion for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/12/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

v.

(ECF NO. 74)

J. RAZO, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12
13

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this

14

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims.

15

Plaintiff is represented by attorney Stanley Goff.

16

On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “notification to court of institution not complying

17

with federal court order attorney-client telefonic [sic] appearance 7/6/2017; 1:00 p.m.” (“the

18

Motion).

19

incarcerated refused to comply with a court order allowing a telephone call between Plaintiff

20

and his attorney on July 6, 2017. Plaintiff asks for a court order instructing the litigation

21

coordinator and the warden to comply with court orders and sanctions for violating court

22

orders.

(ECF No. 74).

According to Plaintiff, staff at the prison where Plaintiff is

23

The Motion will be denied because this Court has not ordered staff at R.J. Donovan

24

Correctional Facility to facilitate a telephone call between Plaintiff and his attorney on July 6,

25

2017. The Court did order staff at R.J. Donovan to facilitate a confidential telephone call on

26

June 29, 2017 (ECF No. 72), but Plaintiff does not mention this call or claim that it failed to

27

take place as ordered.

28

Because there is no court order directing staff at R.J. Donovan to facilitate a telephone

1

1

call on July 6, 2017, the Motion will be denied.

2

The Court takes allegations that a prison has ignored its orders very seriously, especially

3

when they concern access to counsel and the courts. If there was an issue with the telephone

4

call that was to take place on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff may file another motion.

5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

6

1. The Motion is DENIED; and

7

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of the

8

order granting in part the motion for facilitated confidential attorney/client

9

phone calls (ECF No. 72) on Manuel Gonzalez.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

July 12, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2