Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR., 1:04cv6214 AWI DLB 

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(Document 66)

DARREN SWEENEY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant Sweeney on Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed November 24, 2004. On August 22, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions in

which he requests dismissal of this action and an award of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposed the

motion on September 11, 2007. On October 16, 2007, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii referred the

motion to the undersigned for Findings and Recommendation. 

On October 25, 2007, the Court issued an order indicating that it would defer ruling on the

motion for sanctions pending Plaintiff’s responses to discovery. As a final attempt to avoid

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 79 Filed 01/15/08 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

terminating sanctions, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery at issue and provide the

Court with copies of his responses. 

On December 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed copies of his responses to Defendant’s Request for

Production of Documents and Interrogatories. As Plaintiff has complied with the Court’s October

25, 2007, order, the Court recommends that Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions be

DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii pursuant

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being

served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 14, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 79 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 2