Hoffmann v. Jones

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/21/2018 DENYING 25 Motion to Compel Defendant Not to Use Public Fund for Defense Attorneys; DENYING 26 Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Defendants to Comply with Court Orders; DENYING 30 Motion to Preclude Defendant from Using Public Funds for Defense; DENYING 31 Motion to Compel Discovery; and DENYING 28 at 5 and 29 at 5-6 Requests for Sanctions. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KASEY F. HOFFMAN,

11

No. 2:15-cv-1526-EFB P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

KEVIN JONES,

14

ORDER

Defendant.

15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed four unrelated motions – two to prevent defendant from using public

18

funds for defense attorneys (ECF Nos. 25 & 30), a third “for sanctions and to compel defendant to

19

comply with court orders” (ECF No. 26), and a fourth to compel discovery (ECF No. 31). For the

20

reasons stated hereafter, each of these motions is denied.

21

I.

Motions to Compel Defendant Not to Use Public Funds

22

Plaintiff argues that defendant should be precluded from using county funds to pay for the

23

services of his counsel. ECF No. 25 at 4-6, ECF No. 30 at 4-5. Apart from the failure of plaintiff

24

to identify any authority for the order being sought, this issue is unrelated to the constitutional

25

retaliation claims underlying this suit and is fundamentally an issue of state law. Plaintiff’s

26

motion is denied on this basis. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this unrelated claim based on misuse

27

of public funds (assuming any authority for such a claim), he may file a separate suit in the

28

appropriate state court.
1

1

II.

2

Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Compliance with Court Orders
Plaintiff states that he makes this motion in order to compel defendant to answer thirty

3

interrogatories which were served thirty-four days ago. ECF No. 26 at 1. Defendant argues that

4

plaintiff failed to wait a reasonable amount of time for the responses to arrive in the mail. ECF

5

No. 29 at 3. Defendant states that the discovery items in question were postmarked on October

6

19, 2017. Id. at 4. Defendant was required to respond by November 20, 2017.1 Id. Defendant’s

7

counsel has filed a declaration stating that defendant’s responses were served on that date. ECF

8

No. 29-1 at 2. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Both parties have asked for sanctions related to this matter,2 and both requests are denied.

9
10

Plaintiff is obviously not entitled to sanctions insofar as his motion was unsuccessful.

11

Defendants’ request for sanctions is well-taken, but several factors weigh against imposing

12

sanctions in this case. First, plaintiff is an incarcerated layman with limited financial means.

13

Second, discovery in this case is now closed and sanctions are no longer necessary to deter

14

plaintiff’s frequent filing of discovery-related motions. Thus, the parties will bear their own

15

costs.

16
17

III.

Motion to Compel Discovery
On January 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel arguing that defendant has not

18

provided documentary proof of the existence of a Lassen County Jail policy to only retain video

19

footage for one year. ECF No. 31 at 1. Plaintiff alleges, without any credible supporting

20

evidence, that defendant is either withholding or has already intentionally destroyed the footage

21

he has previously requested.3 Id. at 2. Absent some credible evidence that defendant is actually

22
23
24
25

1

2

Defendants have also requested sanctions related to plaintiff’s motion to compel
defendant not to use public funds for his defense. ECF No. 28 at 5. This request for sanctions
will also be denied.
3

26
27
28

November 18, 2017 fell on a Saturday.

Plaintiff previously sought a subpoena to obtain Lassen County Jail video footage from
April 2015. ECF No. 20 at 1. Defendant stated that no such video exists because video at the jail
is only retained for one year. ECF No. 23 at 4. In light of defendant’s assertion that the video in
question did not exist, the court declined to issue a subpoena to plaintiff for the purpose of
obtaining it. ECF No. 27 at 3.
2

1

in possession of the video evidence or intentionally destroyed it to avoid its production in this

2

case, the court declines to revisit this issue. Moreover, this motion to compel is untimely insofar

3

as any motions necessary to compel discovery were to be filed by December 1, 2017. ECF No.

4

15 at 4.4

5

IV.

Conclusion

6

Based on the foregoing it is ORDERED THAT:

7

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Not to Use Public Funds for Defense

8
9
10
11
12

Attorneys (ECF No. 25) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Defendants to Comply with Court
Orders (ECF No. 26) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendant from Using Public Funds for Defense (ECF
No. 30) is DENIED;

13

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 31) is DENIED; and

14

5. Defendant’s requests for sanctions (ECF No. 28 at 5; ECF No. 29 at 5-6) are

15

DENIED.

16

DATED: May 21, 2018.

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

4

The court extended the deadline to propound discovery from September 29, 2017 to
October 24, 2017. ECF No. 18. It did not, however, extend the deadline for filing motions to
compel discovery.
3