Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff St. Michael Balzarini (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 30, 2013. This action

proceeds against Defendants Ulit and Agtarap for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while Plaintiff was housed at 

Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison. 

On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 11 and 37. (ECF No. 40.) On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff did not reply. Plaintiff’s motion for 

sanctions has been submitted upon the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). 

///

ST. MICHAEL BALZARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KYLE LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 40)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37. 

A. Rule 11 Sanctions

Plaintiff asserts that Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed for defense counsel’s “reckless 

misstatements of law and fact” in objections and meaningless filings with this Court.” (ECF No. 40, 

p. 2.) Plaintiff contends that defense counsel needs to quit filing “frivolous claims and motions” and is 

acting like a “1st Year law Student, by citing decisions that have ‘NO Weight’ as precedent[], No 

Authority!” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defense counsel improperly cited unpublished cases. 

Defendants counter that Plaintiff has failed to describe the specific conduct that is alleged to 

violate Rule 11 as required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Defendants further contend that Plaintiff’s 

vague allegations are insufficient to provide notice of the alleged violations critical to a motion under 

Rule 11.

“Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of ‘reasonable 

inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not 

interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. F.B.I., &57

F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 

393, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990)).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and do not demonstrate that Defendants or

defense counsel have made baseless or frivolous filings for an improper purpose in this action. 

Indeed, Plaintiff has not specifically identified any misstatements or objectionable filings as required 

by Rule 11. Fed. R. 11(c)(2) (motion for sanctions must describe the specific conduct that allegedly 

violates Rule 11(b)). Insofar as Plaintiff complains about citation to unpublished cases, Plaintiff has 

not identified any unpublished cases, nor has he directed the Court to any filing by Defendants that 

contain such citations. 

For these reasons, the Court finds no basis for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against 

Defendants or defense counsel. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Rule 37 Sanctions

Plaintiff also seeks the imposition of discovery sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(b). Specifically, Plaintiff requests that default judgment be entered against Defendants. 

Rule 37(b) provides for the imposition of sanctions based on a party’s failure to obey a court 

order to provide or permit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). 

Here, as Defendants correctly note, Plaintiff does not and cannot identify a discovery order that 

Defendants purportedly violated. According to the docket, the Court has not issued any orders

requiring Defendants to provide or permit discovery. Therefore, sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) are 

not appropriate or warranted. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

sanctions, filed November 12, 2014, be DENIED. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 3