Williams v. Hutson, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/9/2017 DENYING 21 Motion for Sanctions. (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO RONNELL WILLIAMS, 12 No. 2:16-cv-1495 AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 HUTSON, et al., 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Defendants. 16 On October 26, 2017, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, 17 18 filed a motion with this court entitled, “Re Realty Quasi-Judicial Negotiable Instrument.” ECF 19 No. 21. In it, plaintiff asks for sanctions against California State Prison officials Hutson and 20 Miller,1 who are defendants in this matter. Id. The precise grounds upon which these sanction 21 requests rest, and the reasons in support of them, are unclear. However, plaintiff appears to 22 contend that the United States Marshal’s court-ordered service of documents upon defendants 23 (see ECF No. 18) constituted an implicit admission that defendants “has [sic] been found to have 24 commited [sic] the accused act” (ECF No. 21 at 1), and that as a result, sanctions against the 25 defendants are now warranted (see id. at 4). In further support of his argument for sanctions, 26 27 28 1 Although in plaintiff’s motion he identifies additional California State Prison officials who he alleges also harmed him, the court has previously determined that potentially cognizable excessive force claims only exist against defendants Hutson and Miller. (See ECF. No. 14 at 2). 1 1 plaintiff cites to Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1229 (9th Cir. 1984). Specifically, plaintiff 2 appears to assert that because defendants’ counters to the allegations in his complaint are not 3 “complete and obvious,” he is entitled to relief under Franklin. See generally id. at 1, 4. 4 Plaintiff misinterprets Franklin. Franklin addressed, in relevant part, whether the court 5 could dismiss sua sponte an initial complaint which provided facts that would clearly defeat the 6 claim. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228-29. Franklin does not, as plaintiff appears to argue, 7 address the potential viability of defenses or sanctions for less viable defenses. For these reasons, 8 plaintiff’s request for sanctions against defendants is denied. 9 Additionally, plaintiff’s effort to address the merits of claims is premature, as defendants 10 have not yet responded to the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff is admonished to refrain from filing 11 further pleadings in this case until so directed by the court. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 13 21) is DENIED. 14 DATED: November 9, 2017 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?