Jamison v. Gummi et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/23/15 ORDERING that the 88 Motion for Summary Judgment, construed as a 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

JEREMY L. JAMISON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-01705 AC P

v.

ORDER

SAMBRAJYA PALAGUMMI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. ECF. Nos.

19

6, 21.

20

Plaintiff has filed a motion which he identifies as a motion for summary judgment. ECF

21

No. 88. Upon examination of the motion, the court finds that it is a motion for sanctions. In his

22

motion, plaintiff alleges that unidentified correctional officers have tampered with his legal mail,1

23

which included copies of medical records he received in this case. Id. at 1-2. He requests that the

24

court grant him sanctions against defendant in the form of summary judgment in his favor. Id. at

25

2-3.
Plaintiff offers no evidence that defendant had any involvement in the alleged mail

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff identifies Officer C. Lopez as the mail officer who delivered the mail at issue, but does
not appear to allege that Officer Lopez was responsible for the tampering.
1

1

tampering and he offers no authority for sanctioning defendant for the actions of unidentified

2

individuals who do not appear to be under defendant’s control or authority.

3

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

4

88) is denied.

5

DATED: April 23, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2