Walker v. King et al
Filing
38
ORDER DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Sanctions and an Injunction;If the Department of State HospitalsCoalinga fails to make Plaintiffs legal property available at the end of this process, Plaintiff may renew his motion for sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/18/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROGER WALKER,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
Case No. 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND AN INJUNCTION
(ECF NO. 33)
TIM POOLE, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
Roger Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and an injunction. (ECF No. 33).
20
Plaintiff states that he has been trying to get his legal materials from his flash drive, but
21
Defendants have wrongfully denied him access to his legal materials on the flash drive. Plaintiff
22
alleges that the refusal to timely return his legal materials has placed a substantial hardship on
23
him and delayed this litigation. Plaintiff requests $150 for every day that he has been without his
24
legal materials.
25
At the outset, the Court notes that while Plaintiff asks for an injunction, Plaintiff does not
26
actually seek injunctive relief. The only relief Plaintiff appears to be seeking is sanctions in the
27
amount of $150 per day that he has been without his legal property. Accordingly, the Court will
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
treat Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for sanctions.
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied. While Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants”
(who have not yet been served) will not return his legal property,” Plaintiff has not alleged any
specific action by any of the defendants in this case. Even if Plaintiff’s non-conclusory factual
allegations are true, the Court is unable to determine that any of the defendants in this case are
directly or indirectly responsible for the failure to timely return Plaintiff’s legal materials.
Moreover, it appears that Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga is actively attempting
to return Plaintiff’s legal materials to him. According to the declaration of Kenneth Bell, who is
employed as a Hospital Police Lieutenant with the Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga, an
officer met with Plaintiff and asked which devices contained his legal work. (ECF No. 36, pgs. 4
& 5, ¶¶ 1 & 4). Plaintiff reported that he had two white flash drives, both with his name on them.
(Id. at p. 5, ¶ 4). Plaintiff voluntarily turned in one flash drive, while another was in the
12
possession of patient Peter Tolles, who was helping Plaintiff with his legal work. (Id.). The
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
officers searched but did not find a white flash drive in Plaintiff’s property. (Id. at ¶ 5). They
found a white flash drive in Tolles’ property, but it did not have Plaintiff’s name on it. (Id.).
Accordingly, the officers needed Tolles to confirm that the flash drive was Plaintiff’s, and to sign
a waiver permitting a scan of the flash drive (both of which Tolles has now done). (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6).
An appointment was scheduled for June 14, 2018, for the transfer of Plaintiff’s information from
Tolles’ flash drive to Plaintiff’s state-issued thumb drive. (Id. at ¶ 6).
Given that it appears that Defendants are not responsible for a failure to return Plaintiff’s
legal property, and that Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga is actively attempting to return
Plaintiff’s legal property, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED
without prejudice.
\\\
\\\
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
2
1
2
3
If the Department of State Hospitals—Coalinga fails to make Plaintiff’s legal property
available at the end of this process, Plaintiff may renew his motion for sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
June 18, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?