Craver v. Hasty et al

Filing 129

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/24/14 denying 126 Motion for Sanctions. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE CRAVER,

12

No. 2: 11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. HASTY, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on

19

September 28, 2015. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s November 4, 2014 motion for

20

monetary sanctions. (ECF No. 126.) For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

21

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against defendants based on their failure to oppose his

22

motion to allow the declaration of Nurse Pearsal. (ECF No. 104.) The background to the motion

23

for sanctions is set forth herein.

24

On June 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to allow the declaration of Nurse Pearsal. (Id.)

25

On June 9, 2014, plaintiff filed two motions: motion for witnesses to appear telephonically (ECF

26

No. 105) and motion for summary trial proceedings (ECF No. 106). On June 9, 2014, plaintiff

27

filed a motion requesting the testimony of Nurse Reynolds. (ECF No. 107). On September 8,

28

2014, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 120).
1

1

On October 16, 2014, the undersigned issued an order denying the five motions set forth

2

above. (ECF No. 122.) In this order, the undersigned noted that plaintiff’s motion to allow the

3

declaration of Nurse Pearsal (ECF No. 104), motion for defendants to provide written testimony

4

of Nurse Reynolds (ECF No. 107), and motion for sanctions (ECF No. 120), were related. (ECF

5

No. 122 at 1.) The undersigned addressed these three motions together, noting that defendants

6

had failed to oppose plaintiff’s motion to allow the declaration of Nurse Pearsal. (Id. at 2.)

7

Plaintiff now moves for sanctions based on defendants’ failure to oppose this motion.

8

Defendants’ failure to oppose plaintiff’s motion to allow the declaration of Nurse Pearsal

9

is not sanctionable conduct. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by defendants’

10

failure to oppose this motion. Moreover, after reviewing the record, the undersigned determined

11

that an opposition to this motion was not required, as defendants had opposed the other related

12

motions.

13

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

14

126) is denied.

15

Dated: November 24, 2014

16
17

Cr1344.san

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2