Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER BURCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00055-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 

FOR SANCTIONS, DISCOVERY, AND 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(ECF NOS. 67, 68, & 69)

Peter Burchett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff recently made three filings. (ECF Nos. 67, 68, & 69). Plaintiff’s filings are 

difficult to understand. Plaintiff appears to request that Defendants and/or the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation be sanctioned because they destroyed evidence and 

are preventing Plaintiff from providing photographs (and other documents) to the Court. 

However, Plaintiff then filed what appears to be some of the photographs that he complains were 

destroyed, along with some of the documents he was allegedly unable to submit. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. The Court notes that once discovery is opened and 

Plaintiff is allowed to make discovery requests, if documents are not provided because they were 

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 70 Filed 02/28/20 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

destroyed, Plaintiff may renew his request for sanctions.

Plaintiff also appears to request discovery. However, the Court has not yet opened 

discovery. While the Court authorized service of the complaint and one defendant has agreed to 

waive service, no defendant has appeared. Thus, discovery will be opened at a later date. The 

Court notes that Plaintiff does not need to submit evidence to the Court at this time.

Finally, Plaintiff appears to request a default judgment. However, the Doe Defendants 

have not been served, and defendant Ramirez has not yet defaulted. Defendant Ramirez only

recently agreed to waive service of process, and has thirty days from February 11, 2020, to file 

his waiver of service of process. (ECF Nos. 58 & 64). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for 

default judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 70 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2