Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021-19/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 

ROBERT COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action proceeds on 

plaintiff’s challenge to the modified program or changes to the modified program implemented on 

April 16, 2012, or on July 9, 2012, including his claim that the “practice of a race based lockdown 

end,” (ECF No. 45-7 at 24), as well as his alleged deprivation of visits and phone calls (ECF No. 

25 at 19-20).1

 (ECF Nos. 67 at 23-27; 29; 77.) 

 On May 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a document seeking sanctions under Rule 37(a)(2)(B) 

based on defendants’ alleged refusal to turn over certain documents or answer questions. Plaintiff 

adds that because he includes accusations of “official misconduct,” his request for preliminary 

 

1

 The undersigned also found that “whether plaintiff’s administrative challenge to the policy, 

custom or practice of race based lockdowns includes a challenge to the December 7, 2011 

lockdown remains a disputed issue of material fact.” (ECF No. 67 at 24.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 93 Filed 05/23/16 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

injunction should be granted. However, it appears that defendants responded to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests, but that plaintiff does not believe the responses were proper or thorough, or 

that certain objections were well-taken. Thus, the court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion to 

compel discovery and for sanctions. The parties shall brief plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(l), and shall also address plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline. In 

addition, to the extent that plaintiff contends that any misconduct took place, his remedy in this 

context is sanctions, not injunctive relief. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is 

denied without prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s May 12, 2016 motion (ECF No. 91) is construed as a motion to compel 

discovery and for sanctions, and includes a request to extend the discovery deadline; 

 2. The parties shall brief plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 91) pursuant to Local Rule 230(l); 

and 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 91) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: May 23, 2016 

/cw/cole1021.mtcfb 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 93 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2