Coleman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/25/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 42 motion for sanctions. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT COLEMAN,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On August 15, 2014, plaintiff

19

filed an objection to defendants’ second request for extension of time in which to file a responsive

20

pleading, and a request for sanctions pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure. Defendants have filed a response.

22

Plaintiff contends it was unreasonable for defendants to seek a second extension of time

23

based on their statement that documents requested have not yet been received from various

24

appeals offices. Plaintiff contends that copies of prison inmate’s appeals are contained within the

25

prisoner’s central file. Plaintiff notes that defendants based their first request for extension of

26

time on a need to receive documents from plaintiff’s central file, but did not mention in their

27

second request that they had not received such documents. Finally, plaintiff argues that it is clear

28

that plaintiff exhausted his equal protection clause claims and thus no documents concerning
1

1

exhaustion are required in order for defendants to respond to such claims and defendants should

2

have responded to such claims. Plaintiff seeks sanctions based on the alleged delay caused by

3

defendants’ requests.

4

First, as argued by defendants, the court has not yet issued a scheduling order;

5

accordingly, sanctions under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not

6

appropriate.

7

Second, plaintiff’s motion is not well-taken. Neither plaintiff nor the court can dictate

8

how defendants’ counsel chooses to litigate this case. Defendants may need documents from both

9

plaintiff’s central file, as well as from the appeals offices of the prison. Moreover, plaintiff’s

10

second amended complaint raises claims other than equal protection clause claims. Defendants

11

are not required to respond piecemeal to plaintiff’s complaint.

12

The court previously found good cause for both requests for extensions of time. Nothing

13

in defendants’ request suggested that the second extension of time was sought for purposes of

14

delay. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and his motion for sanctions is denied.

15

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

16

42) is denied.

17

Dated: August 25, 2014

18
19

cole1021.san

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2