From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Restivo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 15, 2023
1:20-cv-00797-JLT-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00797-JLT-EPG (PC)

03-15-2023

DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. A. RESTIVO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 60)

Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. (ECF 60). Plaintiff points out that on January 11, 2023, the Court directed defense counsel to contact ADR Coordinator Sujean Park (spark@caed.uscourts.gov) within fourteen days to schedule a settlement conference. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff also points out that over two months have passed since the Court issued its order, and no settlement conference has been set. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should sanction Defendants by entering a default judgment because they disobeyed the Court's order.

Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Defense counsel timely contacted ADR Coordinator Sujean Park to set the settlement conference. The delay in setting the conference occurred because the Court had difficulty selecting an available date for a Magistrate Judge to preside over the settlement conference. Thus, the Court will not sanction Defendants or defense counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harris v. Restivo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 15, 2023
1:20-cv-00797-JLT-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023)
Case details for

Harris v. Restivo

Case Details

Full title:DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. A. RESTIVO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Mar 15, 2023

Citations

1:20-cv-00797-JLT-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023)