Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-27/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

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 Saul Barrios Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe, Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, and Brown for conditions of 

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties have consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 111.)

On November 3, 2015, this Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s scheduling order requiring him to file a 

pretrial statement. (ECF No. 115.) On November 18, 2015, after considering Plaintiff’s filings and 

holding a hearing, the Court found Plaintiff did not show good cause for his non-compliance with the 

Court’s order and imposed sanctions on him. (ECF No. 118.) On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

another response to the order to show cause, dated November 11, 2015. (ECF No. 120.) Having 

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01794-BAM (PC)

AMENDED ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS 

AND REQUIRING FILING AND SERVICE OF 

LIST OF PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS

(ECF No. 118, 120)

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 121 Filed 11/30/15 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

considered Plaintiff’s November 11, 2015 response, the Court finds it also does not show good cause 

for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

Plaintiff explains in his November 11, 2015 filing that his non-compliance was due to being 

busy with other civil litigation, and he also discusses a lockdown that occurred after his pretrial 

statement was already due. He also notes he made a belated attempt to seek an extension of time to file 

his pretrial statement with a motion that was dated the last day of the deadline, which the Court did not 

receive until nearly a month later. Plaintiff also generally presented these matters to the Court at the 

hearing. As the Court previously found and explained in its November 18, 2015 order, (ECF No. 118), 

these reasons do not excuse his non-compliance. Consequently, the Court’s November 18, 2015 order 

imposing sanctions stands.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 121 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2