Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06052/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06052-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

DALE WILLS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CAL TERHUNE, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 98-6052 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

(DOCS 190, 202)

Plaintiff is a state prison proceeding pro per. This action now proceeds on the second

amended complaint, filed October 22, 2001, on the claim that defendants Terhune and Galaza

promulgated a policy that caused plaintiff to be exposed to a state of constant illumination within

Corcoran’s security housing unit. 

On July 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions arguing that defendants’ motion for

summary judgment filed on May 6, 2005 violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On September

27, 2005, plaintiff filed a similar motion for sanctions, arguing that defendants’ opposition to

plaintiff’s motion for a deferred ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, violates Rule

11. Plaintiff’s motions are not well taken and are DENIED.

Plaintiff relies on Rule 11(b) which provides:

(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing,

submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or

Case 1:98-cv-06052-OWW -DLB Document 205 Filed 10/03/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and

belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;(2) the claims, defenses, and

other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument

for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new

law;(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted

on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). Rule 11 is intended to deter dilatory or abusive pretrial tactics and to streamline

litigation by excluding baseless filings. Cooter & Gelf v. Hartmarx Corp. 496 U.S. 384 (1990);

Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1542 (9 Cir. 1986). th

The Court has reviewed defendants’ filings and finds that they do not violate Rule 11. Both

the motion for summary and judgment and the opposition to plaintiff’s motion for deferred ruling

contain good faith and reasonable arguments based on defendants’ position regarding the merits of

this case. Neither the motion nor the opposition are abusive, dilatory or baseless. That plaintiff

disagrees with defendants’ arguments or views of the evidence, does not make the filings

sanctionable. Plaintiff’s arguments are better suited for his opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiff’s motions are therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 29, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-06052-OWW -DLB Document 205 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2