Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445-43/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. By order issued May 30, 2008, this court granted defendants a forty-five day extension of time to file a

dispositive motion. (Doc. 258).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT D. GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:03-CV-05445 OWW DLB P

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF

FROM FILING FURTHER NONDISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WITHOUT

FIRST OBTAINING LEAVE OF COURT

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF

FROM FILING ADDITIONAL

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS.

Plaintiff Robert Gibson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. This matter is proceeding on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint against

defendants Beer, Gonzales and Hayward concerning an incident on March 31, 2004.

On August 7, 2007, this court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the discovery

deadline for April 11, 2008, and the dispositive motion deadline for June 11, 2008 (Doc. 182).1/

Although the discovery deadline has long passed, a review of the court docket reveals that several

discovery motions remain outstanding. This action was filed in 2003, is over five years old, and is

continually delayed by plaintiff’s constant filing of notices and motions. In June 2008 alone,

plaintiff filed thirteen (13) notices or motions, including three “Motions in Limine”, two motions

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 281 Filed 07/01/08 Page 1 of 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

2

for summary judgment, and one document wherein plaintiff disclaims any knowledge of motions he

previously filed. (Docs. 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 277).

Plaintiff is advised that the filing of improper documents has the effect of slowing down the

judicial process for all parties litigating actions in this court and will not be tolerated by the court.

The court is in the process of reviewing plaintiff’s five outstanding motions to compel filed with this

court, as well as his two requests to extend the discovery deadline. Until such time as the court has

issued orders regarding these discovery issues, plaintiff may not file any further non-dispositive

motions without first obtaining leave of court. Further, as plaintiff has already filed two separate

documents that he describes as motions for summary judgment, he may not file any further

dispositive motions until all discovery issues are resolved.

The federal courts have the inherent power to sanction parties for bad faith conduct in litigation

or for wilfully disobeying a court order. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. (1991) 501 US 32, 43, 111

S.Ct. 2123, 2132; see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper (1980) 447 US 752, 764-766, 100 S.Ct.

2455, 2463-2464. Plaintiff was previously warned that any further inappropriate behavior or abuse

of the litigation process would result in the issuance of appropriate sanctions, up to and including

the dismissal of the action. (Doc 249). Plaintiff is now expressly cautioned that any further abuse

of the litigation process, including a failure to obey this instant order, will result in the issuance of

Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 30, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 281 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 2