Manning, et al., v. CDCR, et al.,

Filing 262

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/04/15 ordering the office of the attorney general and deputy attorney general Kelli Hammond shall within 10 days of the filing of this order, file a notice advising the court whether after his transfer, plaintiff continues to have restrictive access to his legal property and if his access continues to be restricted, why his access is restricted. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions 260 , 261 are denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHERMAN D. MANNING,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are two motions for sanctions filed by plaintiff. ECF

20

Nos. 260, 261. Plaintiff once again requests sanctions against Deputy Attorney General

21

Hammond and defendants Couch, May, and Stratton for allegedly destroying his legal property

22

and failing to provide copies of the print-outs from Public Access to Court Electronic Records

23

(PACER) searches referenced in the defendants’ interrogatory responses. ECF Nos. 260, 261.

24

Although briefing on the motions is not complete, the court finds that further briefing is not

25

necessary to a fair adjudication of the motions.

26

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions also includes a notice of

27

change of address. ECF No. 261. The Office of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney

28

General Kelli Hammond will be directed to file a notice with the court advising whether, after the
1

1

transfer, plaintiff continues to have restricted access to his legal property, and, if his access

2

continues to be restricted, why his access is restricted (i.e. plaintiff continues to be housed at a

3

Mental Health Crisis Unit).

4

With respect to the issue of plaintiff’s legal property, the court has already advised

5

plaintiff that even if his legal property was in fact destroyed, absent evidence that defendants

6

were involved, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter. ECF No. 252 at 7. Inadmissible

7

hearsay in the form of alleged statements made by other correctional officers does not constitute

8

competent evidence. Plaintiff fails to offer evidence showing any of the defendants were

9

involved in the handling and alleged destruction of his legal property. Absent evidence that

10

defendants had some hand in the loss or destruction of plaintiff’s legal property, the court will not

11

issue sanctions against them. Any further unsupported motions on the matter will be disregarded.

12

As for plaintiff’s claim that he has yet to receive copies of the PACER print-outs, the

13

court has twice advised him of the contents of those print-outs (ECF No. 192 at 5-6; ECF No. 252

14

at 14, fn. 1) in orders that his filings demonstrate that he has received. The court has already

15

denied plaintiff’s previous request for sanctions that was based in part on his allegation that he

16

did not receive these print-outs. ECF No. 252. In doing so, the court decided that it would not

17

require Deputy Attorney General Hammond or defendants Couch, May, and Stratton to once

18

again serve plaintiff with copies of the print-outs. Id. at 14. The court will not issue sanctions for

19

an alleged failure to provide documents when the contents of those documents have been

20

determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this case.1 Any further motions from plaintiff on this

21

matter will be disregarded.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

23

1. The Office of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Kelli Hammond

24

shall, within ten days of the filing of this order, file a notice advising the court whether, after his

25

1

26
27
28

The PACER search results showed that defendants May and Stratton were not parties to any
civil cases and defendant Couch was a party in two civil actions: Case No. 2:07-cv-1989, closed
on 4/1/10 and Case No. 1:08-cv-1621, closed on 1/24/13. ECF No. 192 at 5-6. The court took
judicial notice of the cases in which Couch was a party and determined that “[n]o information
related to these cases could be construed as reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in the instant action.” Id. at 6.
2

1

transfer, plaintiff continues to have restricted access to his legal property, and, if his access

2

continues to be restricted, why his access is restricted (i.e. plaintiff continues to be housed at a

3

Mental Health Crisis Unit).

4
5

2. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 260, 261) are denied.
DATED: June 4, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3