Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440-35/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHERMAN D. MANNING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are two motions for sanctions filed by plaintiff. ECF 

Nos. 260, 261. Plaintiff once again requests sanctions against Deputy Attorney General 

Hammond and defendants Couch, May, and Stratton for allegedly destroying his legal property 

and failing to provide copies of the print-outs from Public Access to Court Electronic Records 

(PACER) searches referenced in the defendants’ interrogatory responses. ECF Nos. 260, 261. 

Although briefing on the motions is not complete, the court finds that further briefing is not 

necessary to a fair adjudication of the motions. 

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions also includes a notice of 

change of address. ECF No. 261. The Office of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney 

General Kelli Hammond will be directed to file a notice with the court advising whether, after the 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 262 Filed 06/04/15 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

transfer, plaintiff continues to have restricted access to his legal property, and, if his access 

continues to be restricted, why his access is restricted (i.e. plaintiff continues to be housed at a 

Mental Health Crisis Unit). 

With respect to the issue of plaintiff’s legal property, the court has already advised 

plaintiff that even if his legal property was in fact destroyed, absent evidence that defendants 

were involved, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter. ECF No. 252 at 7. Inadmissible 

hearsay in the form of alleged statements made by other correctional officers does not constitute 

competent evidence. Plaintiff fails to offer evidence showing any of the defendants were 

involved in the handling and alleged destruction of his legal property. Absent evidence that 

defendants had some hand in the loss or destruction of plaintiff’s legal property, the court will not 

issue sanctions against them. Any further unsupported motions on the matter will be disregarded. 

As for plaintiff’s claim that he has yet to receive copies of the PACER print-outs, the 

court has twice advised him of the contents of those print-outs (ECF No. 192 at 5-6; ECF No. 252 

at 14, fn. 1) in orders that his filings demonstrate that he has received. The court has already 

denied plaintiff’s previous request for sanctions that was based in part on his allegation that he 

did not receive these print-outs. ECF No. 252. In doing so, the court decided that it would not 

require Deputy Attorney General Hammond or defendants Couch, May, and Stratton to once 

again serve plaintiff with copies of the print-outs. Id. at 14. The court will not issue sanctions for 

an alleged failure to provide documents when the contents of those documents have been 

determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this case.1

 Any further motions from plaintiff on this 

matter will be disregarded. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. The Office of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Kelli Hammond 

shall, within ten days of the filing of this order, file a notice advising the court whether, after his 

 

1

 The PACER search results showed that defendants May and Stratton were not parties to any 

civil cases and defendant Couch was a party in two civil actions: Case No. 2:07-cv-1989, closed 

on 4/1/10 and Case No. 1:08-cv-1621, closed on 1/24/13. ECF No. 192 at 5-6. The court took 

judicial notice of the cases in which Couch was a party and determined that “[n]o information 

related to these cases could be construed as reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence in the instant action.” Id. at 6. 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 262 Filed 06/04/15 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

transfer, plaintiff continues to have restricted access to his legal property, and, if his access 

continues to be restricted, why his access is restricted (i.e. plaintiff continues to be housed at a 

Mental Health Crisis Unit). 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 260, 261) are denied. 

DATED: June 4, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 262 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 3