From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammler v. Gooch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC)

06-09-2022

ALLEN HAMMLER, Plaintiff, v. GOOCH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER FOR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS (ECF NOS. 63)

Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May 14, 2019, alleging claims arising from Defendants' alleged failures regarding a fire in Plaintiff's prison and in attending to Plaintiff's resulting medical needs. (ECF No. 1).

On March 24, 2022, this Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants' motion for discovery sanctions be granted to the extent that it requested dismissal of this action in its entirety and denied to the extent that it requested alternative lesser sanctions. (ECF No. 59).

After obtaining an extension, Plaintiff filed objections on May 19, 2022, asserting that his failure to exchange documents was due to his lack of access to legal materials, which has been caused by Law Librarian Hubbard denying him “all services” from November 10, 2021 to present. (ECF No. 63).

Defendants filed a response to the objections on June 3, 2022. (ECF No. 65). Referencing documents that Plaintiff attached to his objections, Defendants state that “[b]ecause Plaintiff's objections contained a document that appears to comply with the Court's previous order to exchange documents . . . Defendants respectfully submit that the underlying issue prompting the motion for sanctions now appears resolved.” (Id. at 1). However, given the delay in production, Defendants request a monetary sanction of $880, with this amount to be paid before Plaintiff be permitted to proceed further in this action. Further, Defendants state that Plaintiff's alleged denial of legal materials from November 10, 2021 to present does not account for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order to exchange documents for the approximately seven months prior to November 2021.

After reviewing Plaintiff's objections and Defendants' response, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a reply in support of his objections, specifically explaining why he failed to timely exchange documents and timely respond to Defendants' motion for discovery sanctions for the entire period of time.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, no later than June 30, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his objections (ECF No. 63). In the reply, Plaintiff shall explain, with as much specificity as possible, what prevented him from exchanging documents from the Court's April 22, 2021 issuance of its order until November 10, 2021, when Plaintiff states that he was denial all legal services. Likewise, Plaintiff shall explain, with as much specificity as possible, what prevented him from timely responding to Defendants' February 8, 2022 motion for sanctions. Plaintiff shall attach to his reply any documents supporting his explanation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hammler v. Gooch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Hammler v. Gooch

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN HAMMLER, Plaintiff, v. GOOCH, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 9, 2022

Citations

1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)