Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067-12/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

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-1067-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this action in May 2020, alleging violations of his Eighth

Amendment right to constitutionally adequate medical care. Defendant Sahota has filed a motion 

for terminating sanctions, ECF No. 89, and plaintiff has moved for preliminary injunctive relief, 

ECF No. 91. On June 14, 2023, I recommended that Sahota’s motion be granted, that this action 

be dismissed, and that plaintiff’s motion be denied as moot. ECF No. 114. Having considered 

plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 115, I now vacate the June 14, 2023 findings and 

recommendations and recommend that both pending motions be denied.

I. Withdrawal of Findings and Recommendations

I previously recommended that terminating sanctions be imposed based on plaintiff’s

failure to fulfill his discovery obligations. ECF No. 114. I reiterated—as I had spelled out in a 

January 5, 2023 order—that plaintiff had failed to attend a scheduled deposition and to submit 

responses to defendant Soltanian’s written discovery requests. ECF No. 86 at 3. In that January 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 117 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 4
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

order, I had denied a prior request for terminating sanctions from defendant Soltanian but had

warned plaintiff that he was required to submit his outstanding written responses within thirty 

days or face the renewed prospect of sanctions. Id. at 3-4. 

On February 16, 2023, after the court’s further-extended deadline had passed, defendant 

Sahota moved for terminating sanctions and argued that plaintiff had failed to submit any written 

discovery responses to any defendant. ECF No. 89-1 at 4. Plaintiff filed an opposition stating

that he had all the discovery defendants had requested, but that none of the defendants had shown 

up for a February 26, 2023 deposition at which he had planned to hand over the relevant 

documents. ECF No. 94 at 1-2; see also ECF No. 95; ECF No. 96 at 2. After considering the 

pleadings, I recommended terminating sanctions. 

Plaintiff filed objections to these findings and recommendations, expanding on certain 

arguments and raising at least one new one. ECF No. 115. In these objections, plaintiff appears 

to take the position that he has already complied with the relevant discovery-related orders.1 See 

id. at 1. He also argues that defendants requested that he bring certain documents to the 

deposition that was ultimately cancelled. Id. (“DEFENDANTS . . . ASKED/REQUESTED 

THAT PLAINTIFF BRING ALL DISCOVERY REQUESTED BY SAHOTA TO SAID 

DEPOSITION.”). In making this argument, plaintiff at least potentially suggests that he held 

onto documents because he had been asked to deliver them at the deposition. Additionally, 

plaintiff repeatedly emphasizes that there are no discovery documents that were not generated by 

defendants and, thus, not already in defendants’ control. Id. at 6. And plaintiff may be taking the 

position that he provided certain allegedly-outstanding discovery material to one (but perhaps not 

both) of the two relevant defendants. See ECF No. 115 at 1. 

Defendants have filed a short response to these objections, re-emphasizing that plaintiff 

held onto discovery-responsive documents past the court’s deadline. ECF No. 116 at 1-2. 

Defendants take the position that plaintiff’s objections contain no new information, but, as noted 

above, I am not convinced that this is correct. 

1

It is difficult to identify precisely what support plaintiff is offering for this assertion.

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 117 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 4
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

In light of the uncertainty created by plaintiff’s objections—including uncertainty about 

whether a defendant may have asked plaintiff to bring information sought in discovery to his 

deposition—and considering the severity of terminating sanctions, I find it appropriate to

withdraw my recommendations and instead to recommend denial of the motion for terminating 

sanctions. Plaintiff shall be given a final thirty-day period to fulfill any outstanding discovery 

obligations. He must mail any responsive documents to the appropriate defendants within that 

time. If he believes that documents he possesses are already in the possession of or are otherwise

accessible to defendants, he may submit well-supported objections explaining as much in lieu of 

the documents. If the parties remain at odds over discovery after that period ends, defendants 

may file an appropriate motion. The parties are notified that the court may consider setting any 

such motion for hearing to assist in evaluating the propriety of sanctions.

II. Denial of Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Given that I am no longer recommending terminating sanctions, plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 91, must be addressed on its merits. I recommend that it 

be denied without prejudice.

In his motion, plaintiff requests a court order directing providers to follow the March 14, 

2022 recommendations of a neurosurgeon that he be provided neck surgery and that all 

medication levels from prior to that date be “restored.” ECF No. 91 at 3. To obtain preliminary 

injunctive relief, a movant must show that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 

his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff has not addressed these factors in his motion, and it 

should be denied on that basis without prejudice to re-filing with proper briefing. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations at ECF No. 114 are VACATED and withdrawn.

2. Within thirty days of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall discharge all remaining 

discovery obligations.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 117 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

1. Defendant Sahota’s motion for terminating sanctions, ECF No. 89, be DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 91, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 

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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 117 Filed 09/13/23 Page 4 of 4