Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01008-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHADALE L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-01008-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION REGARDING

PROPERTY AS MOOT (DOC. 61)

ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AGAINST

DEFENDANTS FOR PERJURED

SUBMISSIONS AS MOOT (DOC. 64)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AS MOOT

(DOC. 65)

Plaintiff Shadale L. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the

Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion regarding his property, filed October 19, 2009; 2) Plaintiff’s

motion for sanction against Defendants for perjured submissions, filed November 5, 2009; and 3)

Plaintiff’s motion for admission of evidence, filed December 10, 2009.

I. Motion Regarding Property

Plaintiff contends that he needed his legal property in order to oppose to Defendants’

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. That motion has already been

resolved. (Findings and Recommendations, filed January 19, 2010, Doc. 66; Order Adopting

Findings and Recommendations, filed March 25, 2010, Doc. 68.) Plaintiff was able to file an

opposition on November 5, 2009, as well as objections to the Findings and Recommendations on

February 25, 2010. (Docs. 63, 67.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion regarding his property is HEREBY

DENIED as moot.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01008-AWI-DLB Document 81 Filed 08/24/10 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

II. Motion For Sanctions Against Defendants

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies contained false statements. Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive, as the Court found

Defendants’ evidence to be correct and sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

III. Motion For Admission Of Evidence

Plaintiff moves for admission of several affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. These affidavits were unpersuasive to the resolution of the

motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for admission of evidence is HEREBY

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01008-AWI-DLB Document 81 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2