From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cranford v. Okpala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 29, 2016
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)

08-29-2016

ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIA OKPALA, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND INJUNCTIVE SANCTIONS [ECF No. 45]

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for monetary sanctions and injunctive sanctions. On July 22, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not responded to discovery. More specifically, Plaintiff contends he has served a total of six sets of interrogatories. Defense counsel declares that to date only one set of special interrogatories, which Defendant answered. (ECF No. 46, Declaration of James Phillips at 2.)

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to respond to certain discovery requests, Plaintiff's motion is deficient. The moving party, such as plaintiff in this instance, bears the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, which responses are disputed, why the defendant's responses are deficient or its objections not justified, and why the information sought is relevant to the prosecution of the action. See Christ v. Blackwell, No. CIV-S-10-0760, 2011 WL 3847165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-CV-05646, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). To satisfy the burden, Plaintiff must provide a copy of the propounded request, as well as the disputed responses, and objections. Roberts v. Cate, No. 2:08-cv-2624, 2011 WL 4405821, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2011); Nelson v. Runnels, No. CIV S-06-1289, 2009 WL 211052, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009). Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 29 , 2016

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cranford v. Okpala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 29, 2016
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)
Case details for

Cranford v. Okpala

Case Details

Full title:ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIA OKPALA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 29, 2016

Citations

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)