Holt v. Nicholas et al

Filing 56

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Sanctions And Request To Deny Extension To Defendants To Respond To Discovery Requests (Doc. 54 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/16/2011. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VIRGIL E. HOLT, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND REQUEST TO DENY EXTENSION TO DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS v. R. NICHOLAS, et al., (Doc. 54) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2009. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding 17 on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2010, against: 1) Defendants R. Nicholas, 18 A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Coontz, M. 19 Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yubeta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, and 20 Valasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) Defendant Holguin for retaliation in violation 21 of the First Amendment and 3) Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for supervisory liability. Doc. 22 21; Doc. 23, Doc. 28.1 23 On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on the grounds that Defendants 24 filed a motion for extension of time in order to intentionally cause delay and circumvent their 25 responsibility to comply with discovery rules. (Doc. 54). Plaintiff further requests that the Court 26 27 28 1 Defendants Hopkins, Eubanks, Nipper Stevenson and Lundy were dismissed pursuant to the order filed September 3, 2010, adopting the Court’s findings and recommendations. Doc. 28. Defendant “Crouch” was dismissed regarding counts 12, 14, 15 for due process and retaliation, however, the Court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment Claim Defendant “T. Crouch.” Doc. 23 at 3, 8; Doc. 28. 1 1 deny Defendants’ request for an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s numerous discovery requests for 2 66 sets of interrogatories so that Plaintiff can submit a motion to compel. (Doc. 54). 3 Federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for attorney misconduct and such 4 sanctions include an award of attorney’s fees, against attorneys and parties for “bad faith” conduct, 5 or “willful disobedience” of a court order. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); 6 Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-766 (1980); In re Akros Installations, Inc., 834 7 F.2d 1526, 1532 (9th Cir. 1987); see Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 43 F.3d 8 65, 73 (3rd Cir. 1995). “Bad faith” means a party or counsel acted “vexatiously, wantonly or for 9 oppressive reasons.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-46; see Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness 10 Society, 421 U.S. 240, 258-259 (1975). 11 Bad faith is tested objectively. “[A] district court’s finding of bad faith or the absence of bad 12 faith in a particular case is a factual determination and may be reversed only if it is clearly 13 erroneous.” Ford v. Temple Hosp., 790 F.2d 342, 347 (3rd Cir. 1986); see Baker v. Cerberus, Ltd., 14 764 F.2d 204, 210 (3rd Cir. 1985); Perichak v. International Union of Elec. Radio, 715 F.2d 78, 79 15 (3rd Cir. 1983). There must be “some indication of an intentional advancement of a baseless 16 contention that is made for an ulterior purpose, e.g., harassment or delay.” Ford, 790 F.2d at 347. 17 Defendants do not appear to have engaged in bad faith conduct in requesting extensions to 18 respond to pending discovery requests especially in light of the numerosity of the requests. 19 Moreover, the Court has already granted Defendants’ request for extension and Plaintiff’s request 20 to deny the extension is moot. 21 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 0jh02o November 16, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?