Opinion
No. CIV S-10-2948 JAM DAD PS.
April 29, 2011
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions against defendant's counsel. Therein, plaintiff asserts that defendant's pending motion to dismiss is premised on a misrepresentation that this action is based on the same set of facts as a 2004 suit filed by plaintiff against Plumas County. The issue of whether this action is based on the same set of facts as the 2004 suit will be resolved by the court in the context of defendant's submitted motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's April 21, 2011 motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 28) is denied as premature, and the motion is dropped from the court's May 20, 2011 calendar.
DATED: April 28, 2011.