From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Easley

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 27, 2012
CIV S-11-0826 GEB CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)

Opinion


TYRONE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES EASLEY, et al., Defendants. No. CIV S-11-0826 GEB CKD PS. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 27, 2012.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for sanctions came on regularly for hearing January 25, 2012. Plaintiff Tyrone Adams, who is proceeding pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Derek Haynes appeared on behalf of defendants Sutter County, Boyer, Cagle, Bagley ("Sutter" defendants). Matthew Day appeared on behalf of the defendants moving to dismiss ("Easley" defendants). Plaintiff submitted additional documents at the hearing. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

         1. No later than February 9, 2012, defense counsel for the parties moving for sanctions shall submit a supplemental declaration regarding any additional fees which have been incurred subsequent to the filing of the motion for sanctions and detailed billing reflecting time spent on various tasks; defendants shall also submit declarations from other public entity defense attorneys supporting the claimed hourly rates.

         2. No later than February 16, 2012, plaintiff may file a five page document responding to the supplemental declarations. The motion for sanctions will thereafter stand submitted.

         3. The court will issue findings and recommendations on the motions to dismiss in conjunction with the findings and recommendations to be issued on the motion for sanctions.

         4. Plaintiff's motion to stay (dkt. no. 91) is denied.

         5. Plaintiff has requested the undersigned recuse herself from this action. The court finds that recusal is not warranted under any of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455.

         6. The January 4, 2012 order limiting plaintiff's pleadings is modified. In addition to the pleadings allowed in that order, due to the death of defendant Trefcer, plaintiff may file a motion to substitute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25.


Summaries of

Adams v. Easley

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 27, 2012
CIV S-11-0826 GEB CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Adams v. Easley

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES EASLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 27, 2012

Citations

CIV S-11-0826 GEB CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)