Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

KEENAN WILKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HESLOP,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

excessive force, retaliation, and violations of due process and equal protection. Plaintiff also 

asserts state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is before the court. (ECF No. 55.) For the 

reasons set forth below, the motion is denied and plaintiff is admonished regarding the further 

filing of legally frivolous motions for sanctions.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court and defendants 

removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.) At all relevant times, plaintiff 

was an inmate at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). (ECF No. 20 at 1.)

The operative complaint alleges S. Heslop used excessive force against plaintiff on 

January 17, 2019. (ECF No. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff “sought redress against Heslop.” (Id. at 7.) In an 

alleged act of retaliation, Heslop issued a “write-up with false statements” which resulted in 90 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 59 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 4
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

days of punishment. (Id.) Defendant Sawma was plaintiff’s staff assistant and defendant B. 

Velasquez was the hearing officer. (ECF No. 20 at 9-11.) Plaintiff was found guilty of a rule 

violation. (ECF No. 20 at 11.) Although the RVR was dismissed on appeal, plaintiff still suffered 

the punishment. (Id.) 

On July 24, 2023, the court ordered that this case proceeds on the following claims: (1) 

against defendant S. Heslop for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment, assault, battery, and violation of the Bane Act; and (2) 

against B. Velasquez and A. Sawma for a violation of plaintiff’s equal protection rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 34.)

On February 5, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) 

Briefing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently stayed. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.)

On April 16, 2024, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion to modify 

the scheduling order. (ECF No. 57.)

II. Motion for Sanctions

On April 4, 2024, plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions presently before the court. (ECF 

No. 55.) Plaintiff seeks sanctions against counsel for defendants, claiming they put forth false 

facts in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 3-12.) Defendants opposed the 

motion. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 58.)

“Rule 11 requires the imposition of sanctions when a motion is frivolous, legally 

unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Conn v. 

Borjorquez, 967 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1992), citing Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. AC Company, 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts also have the inherent authority 

to sanction conduct abusive of the judicial process. See Chambers v. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32,

43-45 (1991).

As argued by defendants, a motion for sanctions is not the proper mechanism in which to 

litigate the merits of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s motion is based on his belief that defendants 

allegedly lied and falsified evidence. In support of the motion, plaintiff argues the merits of the

claims, citing evidence he claims demonstrates the defendants’ evidence is false.

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 59 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Instead of seeking sanctions, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to challenge defendants’ 

evidence by producing his own evidence. If plaintiff believes a particular defendant or witness is 

not credible, he may attack credibility at trial, by cross-examination of a particular witness.1

There is no basis to sanction counsel or defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on alleged false declarations is legally frivolous for 

the reasons set forth herein. Moreover, plaintiff has previously been admonished by this court that 

motions for sanctions based on alleged false statements in declarations are legally frivolous. See

Wilkins v. Barber, No. 2:19-CV-1338-WBS-KJN-P, 2021 WL 4066048, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 

2021). Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of frivolous motions for sanctions or other 

frivolous motions may result in the imposition of sanctions on plaintiff. Such sanctions may 

include dismissal of this action or an award of costs under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16(f), 26(g), and 37.

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

1

“[A] court ruling on a motion for summary judgment may not engage in credibility 

determinations or the weighing of evidence.” Manley v. Rowley, 847 F.3d 705, 711 (9th Cir. 

2017) (citation omitted). “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must leave 

credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences 

from the facts to the jury.” Foster v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 243 F. App’x 208, 210 (9th Cir. 

2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 59 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF 

No. 55) is denied.

Dated: April 26, 2024

DLB7

wilk20cv1622.sanct

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 59 Filed 04/29/24 Page 4 of 4