Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-65/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 David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Pursuant to the July 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, discovery closed on December 

15, 2014. 

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TASSEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Document 156)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 176 Filed 03/04/15 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

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, contending that Defendants had 

failed to provide responses as ordered by the Court on December 29, 2014.1

Although Defendants did not oppose the motion, Plaintiff stated in a subsequent motion that he 

received Defendants’ supplemental responses on February 6, 2015.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore moot and is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff indicates that the date of the Court’s order regarding his motion to compel was December 25, 2014. However, 

although the order was signed on December 25, 2014, it was not docketed until December 29, 2014. Therefore, 

Defendants’ time for compliance with the order did not begin to run until December 29, 2014, when they received notice of 

the order through CM/ECF. Local Rule 135(a).

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 176 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2