Hollis v. Bal et al

Filing 82

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 08/19/21 DENYING 56 , 77 motions to compel arbitration and set a settlement conference and DENYING 64 motion for sanctions. Also, RECOMMENDING that plainti ff's motion for default judgment 62 be denied. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 58 be denied. Motions 58 , 62 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Case 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP Document 82 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-2145-MCE-JDP (P)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
(1) TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; (2) TO SET
A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; (3) AND
FOR SANCTIONS

J. BAL, et al.,
ECF Nos. 56, 64, 77

15

Defendants.

18

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE COURT DENY PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR (1) PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND (2) FOR
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

19

ECF Nos. 58, 62

16
17

20
21
22

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed five motions that are

23

addressed herein.

24

I.

25

First, plaintiff has filed two motions that collectively request that defendants be compelled

26
27
28

Motions to Compel Arbitration and Set a Settlement Conference

to participate in arbitration and that a settlement conference be set.1 ECF Nos. 56, 77. But
In one motion, plaintiff requests that a “discovery order” issue if a settlement conference
is not set. ECF No. 77 at 2. That request is granted, and a discovery and scheduling order will be
1
1

Case 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP Document 82 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 4
1

plaintiff does not claim, much less establish, that the parties have entered into an enforceable

2

arbitration agreement. See Lifescan Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1011-12

3

(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that contract principles govern arbitration and that “the district court’s

4

role is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists . . . .”). Consequently,

5

there is no basis for ordering defendants to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims. I also decline to set a

6

settlement conference. Defendants oppose the request for a settlement conference, arguing that

7

plaintiff’s claims lack merits. ECF No. 79, 80. Given defendants’ position, a court-facilitated

8

settlement conference would likely be unproductive at this time and a waste of scarce judicial

9

resources. These motions, ECF Nos. 56, 77, are therefore denied.

10

II.

Motion for Sanctions

11

Plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions asking that defendant Sahota be ordered to

12

reimburse him the $3.50 he incurred in preparing and mailing a motion for default judgment.

13

ECF No. 64. He contends that the court’s September 23, 2020 order required all defendants to

14

file a waiver of service by November 25, 2020, and that Sahota has not complied. Id. at 1-2. He

15

further claims that had Sahota filed a waiver of service, plaintiff would not have prepared and

16

filed his January 4, 2021 motion for default judgment. Id. at 2.

17

Plaintiff’s position is based on an erroneous reading of the court’s September 23 order.

18

That order required the California Attorney General’s Office to file a waiver of service for any

19

defendant who is waiving service of process. ECF No. 50 at 6. Sahota, unlike the other

20

defendants, is not represented by the California Attorney General’s Office. Consequently, that

21

office could not file a waiver on Sahota’s behalf. Accordingly, there is no basis for finding that

22

Sahota violated the September 23 order. Furthermore, and as discussed below, plaintiff’s motion

23

for default judgment against Sahota lacks merit. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 64, is

24

denied.

25
26
27
28

issued in due course.
2

Case 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP Document 82 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 4
1

III.

Motion for Default Judgment

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a

3

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is

4

shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

5

Prior to plaintiff filing his motion for default judgment, Sahota filed a motion for an extension of

6

time to file an answer, which was granted. ECF Nos. 61, 65. Thereafter, he timely sought a

7

second extension of the deadline for filing an answer. That motion was also granted, and Sahota

8

was ordered to file his answer by no later than February 26, 2021. ECF Nos. 69, 72. He timely

9

filed his answer on that date. ECF No. 76. Thus, Sahota has not failed to defend against

10

plaintiff’s claims. I therefore recommend that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No.

11

62, be denied.

12

IV.

13

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking that he be provided

14

therapeutic shoes and a podiatrist appointment. ECF No. 58 at 3. The motion should be denied.

15

The allegations in this case concern events that occurred in 2011 and 2012, when

16

defendants allegedly withheld medical accommodations to which plaintiff was entitled, including

17

orthotic shoes, an eggcrate mattress, and eyeglasses. ECF No. 49 at 8. By contrast, the issues

18

raised in the current motion for preliminary injunction are alleged to have occurred in 2018. ECF

19

No. 58 at 3. First, plaintiff alleges that, on July 31, 2018, he received insoles instead of the

20

orthotic shoes he had been prescribed. Id. Second, plaintiff states that on May 29, 2018, his

21

primary care physician referred him to a podiatrist, but that appointment has not been kept. Id. at

22

7-8.

23

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the relief requested in the motion for

24

preliminary injunction is insufficiently related to the claims at issue in this case. See Pac.

25

Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A

26

preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as that to be finally

27

granted.”). The violations plaintiff now seeks to injunctively redress occurred six years after the

28

claims at issue in the complaint. They must be addressed, if at all, in a separate action.
3

Case 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP Document 82 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 4
1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel arbitration and to set a settlement conference,

2
3

ECF Nos. 56 & 77, are denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 64, is denied.

4
5

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion to for default judgment, ECF No. 62, be denied.

7

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order,

8

ECF No. 58, be denied.

9

I submit these findings and recommendations to a United States District Judge under 28

10

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, the

11

parties may file written objections with the court. If the parties file such objections, they should

12

do so in a document captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

13

Recommendations.”

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

August 19, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4