Gakuba v. Wright et al
ORDER denying 63 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/17/2020. (anp)
Case 3:19-cv-01274-NJR Document 67 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #475
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case No. 19-cv-1274-NJR
KARIN PANNIER, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Peter Gakuba’s motion for sanctions,
breach of protective order, and hearing requested (Doc. 63). Defendant Karin Pannier has
filed a response (Doc. 64) in opposition to the motion. Gakuba has filed a reply (Doc. 65).
Gakuba’s motion for sanctions alleges that he was told by a “jailhouse snitch” that
the Illinois Attorney General’s Office was preparing civil commitment proceedings
against him and that the snitch learned about these proceedings from someone in the
administration at Vienna Correctional Center. Gakuba assumes, without offering any
evidence, that Defendants or counsel in this case released his prison records. He requests
sanctions and an order from the Court compelling the Attorney General to inform him as
to whether they intend to pursue civil commitment proceedings.
The Court notes that Gakuba fails to offer a procedural basis for his motion for
sanctions. He argues that Defendants violated the protective order by releasing his prison
records, but there is no protective order in this case. The Court did enter an initial
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:19-cv-01274-NJR Document 67 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #476
scheduling order allowing for initial disclosures, but those disclosures do not include any
information that Gakuba purports was released. Although Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) allows for sanctions when a party “fails to obey an order to provide
or permit discovery,” the Court finds no such violation. Gakuba fails to present any
evidence of a protective order or that Defendants in this case released information to the
To the extent Gakuba seeks a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,
that motion also fails. That rule deals with representations made to the Court by an
attorney or unrepresented party, but Gakuba does not appear to attack any
representations made to the Court. Rather he alleges that counsel or Defendants disclosed
his prison records to another inmate. Thus, Rule 11 is not a proper procedure for
Gakuba’s request for sanctions.
Finally, the Court notes that Gakuba’s allegations are unrelated to the claims in
this case. This case focuses on a single count against Karen Pannier for allegedly limiting
his access to the law library and legal materials (Doc. 17). 1 His allegations in his motion
for sanctions relate to the release of information regarding a possible civil commitment
proceeding. Gakuba fails to offer any evidence that Pannier participated in the release of
this information or that the release was related to discovery proceedings in this case. Any
potential civil commitment proceeding is not the subject of his present lawsuit. If Gakuba
feels that his constitutional rights have been violated, he may file a new lawsuit after first
Terry Grissom, the warden at Vienna, is only in the case in his official capacity to the extent
Gakuba seeks injunctive relief.
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:19-cv-01274-NJR Document 67 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #477
exhausting his administrative remedies. But he offers no evidence, beyond his own mere
speculation, that any of the participants in this case released his prison records to other
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Gakuba’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 63).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2020
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?