Navarro v. Herdon et al

Filing 215

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/12/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 211 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO NAVARRO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 09-cv-1878 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DEBRA HERNDON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 211.)

19

For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

20
21
22

On March 25, 2016, the undersigned recommended that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 183.)
On April 6, 2016, the undersigned scheduled this action for a settlement conference.

23

(ECF No. 184.) The undersigned ordered that objections to the findings and recommendations

24

were due fourteen days after the settlement conference if no settlement was reached. (Id.) The

25

undersigned directed the Warden at Ironwood State Prison, where plaintiff was housed, to

26

transport plaintiff to Sacramento for the settlement conference. (ECF No. 185.)

27
28

A settlement conference was held on July 8, 2016. This action did not settle. On August
15, 2016, plaintiff filed four page objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No.
1

1

204.) In his objections, plaintiff stated that he was now housed at the California Training Facility

2

(“CTF”). In his objections, plaintiff stated that his legal property was still at California State

3

Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac), where he was housed for the settlement conference.

4

On August 19, 2016, the undersigned ordered defendants to inform the court of the status

5

of plaintiff’s access to his legal property. (ECF No. 207.) On August 24, 2016, defendants

6

informed the court that, on or about August 18, 2016, four boxes of plaintiff’s legal property were

7

shipped from CSP-Sac to CTF. (ECF No. 209.)

8
9

On August 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendants. (ECF No.
205.) Plaintiff argued that defendants should be sanctioned because they were withholding his

10

legal property. On August 25, 2016, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

11

because plaintiff’s legal property had been shipped to him. (ECF No. 210.) The undersigned also

12

granted plaintiff twenty-one days to file his supplemental objections to the March 25, 2016

13

findings and recommendations. (Id.)

14

On September 14, 2016, plaintiff filed the pending motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 211.)

15

In this motion, plaintiff alleges that he did not receive access to his legal property until September

16

4, 2016. Plaintiff also claims that his legal property has been tampered with. Plaintiff alleges that

17

an original grievance and sections of his prison files are missing from his legal property.

18
19
20

On September 23, 2016, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s pending motion for
sanctions. (ECF No. 213.)
After reviewing the pleadings, the undersigned finds that sanctions are not warranted. If

21

plaintiff is missing legal property that he requires for trial, he may file an appropriate motion with

22

the court.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No.

24

211) is denied.

25

Dated: October 12, 2016

26
27
Nav1878.san
28
2