Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-19/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROOME,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-cv-06496-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECUSAL AS MOOT (Doc. 226)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

ASSESSING SANCTIONS AGAINST

PLAINTIFF (Doc. 214)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO REMIT

MONETARY SANCTION AMOUNTS TO

COUNTY COUNSEL’S OFFICE AND COURT

WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S BAD

FAITH CONDUCT, AND DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections were

to be filed within thirty days. After obtaining several extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an Objection

on February 6, 2007. Defendant Broome did not file a response. 

///

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 231 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 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

2

In addition, on October 6, 2006, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, before whom this case was

pending, issued an order disclosing that his wife works for the County of Fresno. Judge Ishii

declined to sua sponte recuse himself because it did not appear Mrs. Ishii’s employment was related

to the events at issue in this action. However, Judge Ishii granted leave to the parties to file a motion

should any party believe a motion appropriate. After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed

a motion to recuse Judge Ishii and the Fresno County Counsel’s Office as defense counsel on

February 6, 2007. Defendant filed an opposition on February 6, 2007, and plaintiff filed a reply on

February 20, 2007.

On February 22, 2007, this action was reassigned following the appointment of the

undersigned to the position of United States District Judge. In light of the reassignment of this

action, plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, the

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the undersigned finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to recuse Judge Ishii and the County Counsel’s Office, filed

February 6, 2007, is DENIED as moot in light of the reassignment of this case;

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 15, 2006, is adopted in full;

3. Plaintiff is (1) formally reprimanded for serving his filing of April 9, 2004, on the

Attorney General’s Office despite having been warned of the problem by the Court

in its order of March 12, 2004, and (2) warned that monetary sanctions will be

assessed against him if the violation occurs again;

4. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL (1) pay

$102.70 to the Fresno County Counsel’s Office, which is the cost incurred in filing

the motion to compelservice of the opposition, and (2) pay $250.00 to the Court, for

making false representations in his opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel 

///

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 231 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 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

3

service, and for making false representations and failing to concede his error in his

surreply; 

5. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s bad faith conduct

relating to the filing of motions for entry of default, for an order deeming

Defendant’s affirmative defenses waived, and for leave to amend; and

6. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 231 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3