Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for monetary sanctions and injunctive sanctions. On 

July 22, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not responded to discovery. More specifically, Plaintiff 

contends he has served a total of six sets of interrogatories. Defense counsel declares that to date only 

one set of special interrogatories, which Defendant answered. (ECF No. 46, Declaration of James 

Phillips at 2.) 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to respond to certain discovery requests, 

Plaintiff’s motion is deficient. The moving party, such as plaintiff in this instance, bears the burden of 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIA OKPALA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

MONETARY SANCTIONS AND INJUNCTIVE 

SANCTIONS 

[ECF No. 45]

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, which responses 

are disputed, why the defendant’s responses are deficient or its objections not justified, and why the 

information sought is relevant to the prosecution of the action. See Christ v. Blackwell, No. CIV-S10-0760, 2011 WL 3847165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-CV-05646, 

2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). To satisfy the burden, Plaintiff must provide a 

copy of the propounded request, as well as the disputed responses, and objections. Roberts v. Cate, 

No. 2:08-cv-2624, 2011 WL 4405821, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2011); Nelson v. Runnels, No. CIV 

S-06-1289, 2009 WL 211052, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009). Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2