Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00986-6/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

SURINDER BAINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-0986 CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Two related motions are before the Court. 

As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied, and plaintiff is granted an 

extension of time to file an opposition or statement of non opposition to defendants’ motion to 

compel discovery.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2024, defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery order. (ECF No. 

21.) On November 12, 2024, defendants’ motion to modify was granted. (ECF No. 22.) On 

October 7, 2024, defendants filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff did not 

file a timely opposition, and on November 12, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or 

statement of no opposition within fourteen days. (ECF No. 22.) 

On December 6, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause why sanctions 

should not be imposed on defendants for allegedly failing to serve on plaintiff a copy of the two 

Case 2:23-cv-00986-CSK Document 25 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 3
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

motions filed by defendants in October (hereafter “October motions”). (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff 

provided a copy of his mail log which reflected no incoming mail from the Attorney General for 

the month of October, as well as a copy of a mailing he received from the Attorney General on 

September 27, 2024, purportedly mailed on September 24, 2024. (Id. at 8-14.) The September 

27, 2024 mailing was for another inmate’s case. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff contends sanctions are 

warranted based on defense counsel “knowingly and purposely perpetrat[ing] a fraud upon this 

Court by misrepresenting” that the October motions were mailed to plaintiff. (Id. at 1.) 

On December 13, 2024, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s motion, and 

“categorically deny plaintiff’s allegations.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) Defendants deny they failed to 

serve their October motions on plaintiff; defense counsel confirmed with support staff that the 

motions were properly served on plaintiff, which is corroborated by the proofs of service attached 

to the motions. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants are “unaware of the reason why these motions do not 

appear” on the mail log provided by plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) Defendants deny mailing anything to 

plaintiff on September 24, 2024. (Id. at 2.) Defendants point out that plaintiff failed to identify 

any rule under which he is entitled to sanctions and argue plaintiff fails to meet the burden 

required to impose sanctions. (Id. at 1.) Defendants contend they have engaged in no improper 

conduct concerning the service or filing of the October motions. (Id.) Further, on December 11, 

2024, defendants re-served the October motions on plaintiff by mailing them to plaintiff at 

California Health Care Facility in Stockton and have no objection if the Court decides to grant 

plaintiff an extension of time but request an opportunity to reply. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

II. DISCUSSION 

Because the September 27, 2024 mailing pre-dated the filing of defendants’ October 

motions, such mailing has no bearing on the service of the October motions in this action. The 

Court has reviewed the certificates of service for the October motions and find they were properly 

completed and signed under penalty of perjury. (ECF Nos. 20 at 116; 21-2 at 1.) The Court 

cannot explain why plaintiff did not receive defendants’ October motions, nor why such motions 

were not listed on plaintiff’s mail log. While plaintiff speculates that his failure to receive the 

Case 2:23-cv-00986-CSK Document 25 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 3
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

October motions was the result of some misrepresentation or fraud, plaintiff provides no facts or 

evidence showing such alleged misconduct. The Court finds no improper conduct occurred, and 

therefore denies plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. 

However, because plaintiff did not receive the October motions, plaintiff is granted an 

extension of time to file an opposition or statement of non opposition to defendants’ motion to 

compel discovery. Defendants re-served the motion to compel discovery on plaintiff on 

December 11, 2024. Plaintiff shall file his opposition or statement of non opposition on or before 

January 11, 2025. Defendants’ reply, if any, is due fourteen days thereafter. Local Rule 230(l).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 23) is denied. 

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non opposition to defendants’ motion 

to compel discovery (ECF No. 20) on or before January 11, 2025. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall 

be filed fourteen days thereafter.

Dated: December 26, 2024

/1/bain0986.eot

Case 2:23-cv-00986-CSK Document 25 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3