Coleman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/13/14 denying without prejudice 48 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

ROBERT COLEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

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

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILIATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On October 6, 2014, plaintiff filed

18
19

a motion to impose sanctions under Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

Plaintiff notes that he objected to defendants’ evidence submitted in support of the pending

21

motion for summary judgment, but now seeks unspecified sanctions based on defendants’ alleged

22

submission of false evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment. On October 13,

23

2014, defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to provide

24

defendants with 21 days advance notice of his motion pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2), and that

25

plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ evidence is not a legally sufficient basis for the imposition of

26

sanctions. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

27

////

28

////
1

1

Rule 11(c)(2) provides as follows:

2

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion and must describe the specific
conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be
served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the
court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial
is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service
or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may
award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

3
4
5
6
7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).

8
9

Here, plaintiff failed to provide defendants with advance notice as required under the
Federal Rules. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and is denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No.

10
11

48) is denied without prejudice.

12

Dated: November 13, 2014

13
14

/cole1021.san2

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court will address the parties’ evidence when ruling on defendants’ pending motion for
summary judgment.
2