(PC) Sekona v. Francis et al

Filing 165

ORDER DENYING 158 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Noting 159 Plaintiff's Agreement with Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 8/30/2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ETUATE SEKONA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
MAGGIE FRANCIS,

14

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTING
PLAINTIFF’S AGREEMENT WITH
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
Docs. 158, 159.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Etuate Sekona is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Francis. This action is set

19

for trial on September 10, 2024, on Sekona’s claim against Francis for deliberate indifference to

20

Sekona’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Sekona moves for

21

sanctions regarding defendant’s alleged failure to provide her trial exhibits by the deadline set in

22

the court’s amended final pretrial order. Doc. 158. Sekona also filed a one-page document,

23

which he captioned as a “motion,” noting his agreement with defendant’s proposed jury

24

instructions. Doc. 159.

25

I.

ANALYSIS

26

A. Sekona’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 158)

27

Construing Sekona motion for sanctions liberally, he appears to argue that defendant did

28
1

1

not timely produce her trial exhibits. Doc. 158. Specifically, Sekona’s motion, which he served

2

on August 26, 2024, and which was filed on August 28, 2024, alleges that he did not have

3

defendant’s “trial exhibits” and had not received defendant’s “pretrial status reports” by the

4

deadline date. Id. at 1. He notes that the August 23, 2024, date for objections to exhibits had also

5

passed. Id. at 1. Sekona further asserts that he sent his “pretrial statement evidence” to defendant

6

on August 8, 2024. Id. The court construes Sekona’s allegations regarding “pretrial status

7

reports” and “pretrial statement evidence” to refer to the parties’ trial exhibits. The amended final

8

pretrial order required the parties to exchange trial exhibits by August 9, 2024, and set a deadline

9

of August 23, 2024 for the filing of objections to the other party’s exhibits. Doc. 127 at Id.

10

Defendant has submitted a proof of service with her exhibit list indicating that she served

11

her trial exhibits on Sekona on July 11, 2023, over one year ago. Doc. 161. The court’s previous

12

pretrial order had set July 11, 2023, as the date for the parties to exchange trial exhibits. In his

13

declaration filed on August 19, 2024, defense counsel confirms that defendant served Sekona

14

with her exhibits in July 2023, although he indicates there is some confusion as to the exact date

15

in July 2023 when they were served, notwithstanding the proof of service dated July 11, 2023.

16

See Doc. 148 at 2. Defense counsel also served a second copy set of defendant’s exhibits on

17

Sekona, on August 28, 2024. Doc. 160.

18

Even with the possible discrepancy as to the exact date in July 2023 when defendant first

19

served her exhibits on Sekona, the record reflects that Sekona has been served twice with

20

defendant’s trial exhibits: first in July 2023 and then on August 28, 2024. Sekona’s motion for

21

sanctions (Doc. 158) is therefore denied based on the record before the court. However, Sekona

22

indicates that, based on the amended final pretrial order, he expected defendant to serve a new set

23

of her trial exhibits by August 9, 2024. Defendant did not do so until August 28, 2024, and

24

Sekona argues that he was unable to file his objections by August 23, 2024. Given these

25

circumstances, if Sekona has objections to defendant’s trial exhibits, he may raise such objections

26

at trial.

27

B. Sekona’s filing stating his agreement with proposed jury instructions (Doc. 159)

28

Although Sekona’s filing at Doc. 159 is captioned as a “motion,” it does not seek any
2

1

relief by way of motion. Rather, in this filing Sekona informs the court and defendant that he

2

agrees with defendant’s proposed jury instructions. See Doc. 159. In the amended final pretrial

3

order, the court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding jury instructions, but Sekona

4

was not required to file proposed jury instructions himself. See Doc. 127. Sekona was instructed

5

to notify the court if he had any objections to defendant’s proposed jury instructions. Id. at 15.

6

The court construes Sekona’s filing at Doc. 159 as his notice of agreement with defendant’s

7

proposed jury instructions.

8

II.

9

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions (Doc. 158) is DENIED, but plaintiff may

10
11

raise at trial any objections he may have to defendant’s trial exhibits; and

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion for acceptance of jury instructions (Doc. 159) is construed as

13

plaintiff’s notice of agreement with defendant’s proposed jury instructions.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3