Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT G. BAKER ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 37)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference

claim. (ECF No. 11.)

Default initially was entered against Defendant Kitt. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant 

moved to set aside the entry of default (ECF No. 19), and the motion was granted (ECF 

No. 23). Thereafter, Defendant answered the complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a 

motion in opposition to the answer. (ECF No. 30.) The motion was stricken as improper 

and unauthorized. (ECF No. 36).

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 20, 2015 motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 

37.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/25/15 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

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against 

defense counsel, Defendant, and an individual named Elizabeth Statler, who filed a 

declaration in this action in support of Defendant’s motion to set aside default. Plaintiff 

claims that Defendant’s and Ms. Statler’s declarations, submitted with the motion to set 

aside default, contained false statements. Specifically, although Ms. Statler claimed to 

have contacted an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance to request representation 

for Defendant in this action, Plaintiff has communicated with an entity called Premier 

Physician’s Alliance who denies any knowledge as to Defendant or this action. In 

support, Plaintiff submits a letter from the administrator of Premier Physician’s Alliance. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion constitutes an untimely opposition to the 

motion to set aside default and, in any event, fails to establish grounds for sanctions.

Defendant also objects to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff.

III. ANALYSIS

The time for Plaintiff to challenge the credibility of Defendant’s and Ms. Statler’s 

declarations was in his opposition to the motion to set aside default. He filed no such 

opposition. His belated attempt to oppose the motion now, through a request for 

sanctions, is not viewed favorably by the Court.

In any event, the letter submitted by Plaintiff does not provide a basis for 

sanctions. Defendant Kitt stated, in his declaration in support of the motion to set aside 

default, that he was associated with an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance in the 

area of Bakersfield, California. The letter supplied by Plaintiff, from an administrator 

denying knowledge of this action, is from an entity called Premier Physician’s Alliance in 

Abilene, Texas. It is apparent that the letter supplied by Plaintiff is not from the correct 

entity. Furthermore, Ms. Statler submitted a declaration in opposition to the instant 

motion clarifying that the entity at issue here is in Bakersfield. 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/25/15 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

Nothing submitted by Plaintiff calls into question the veracity of Defendant’s or 

Ms. Statler’s declarations or indicates that the motion to set aside default was lacking in 

evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 37) is HEREBY 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 3