Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697-9/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 Said defendant is identified in the complaint as “Sergeant Caroll.” 1

 Said defendant is identified in the complaint as “Officer Corrouso.” 2

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court.

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion

Requesting an Answer from the Courts.” In this document, plaintiff requests information

concerning the status of defendants Carroll and Carrozzo. After review of the record herein, 1 2

and good cause appearing, defendants Carroll and Carrozzo will be ordered to show cause why

sanctions should not be imposed for failure for failure to file an answer to the exhausted claims

in plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with the order of the district court filed March 22, 2006. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 67 Filed 08/02/06 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

 The findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the district court on March 3

22, 2006.

2

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the prayer for relief

in his complaint. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to delete his prayer for injunctive relief and to add

a prayer for compensatory and punitive damages. Good cause appearing, defendants will be

directed to respond to plaintiff’s motion.

On May 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Permission to File A Motion for Reconsideration.” Plaintiff contends that “material new facts”

have emerged since this court issued findings and recommendations on February 10, 2006 on

defendants’ motion to dismiss, but he provides no information about what those facts might be or

how, if at all, such facts would provide grounds for reconsideration of the recommendations

made by this court. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days from the date of this order defendants Carroll and Carrozzo

shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an answer to

the exhausted claims in plaintiff’s complaint;

2. Within ten days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a

response to plaintiff’s April 20, 2006 motion to amend his prayer for relief; and

3. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 motion is denied.

DATED: July 31, 2006.

12

keet0697.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 67 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2