Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAJ CHRISTOPHER GUPTA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-1095 GEB GGH P

vs.

C.A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for trial on May 9, 2006. The remaining issue in this action

is whether defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by denying him outdoor

exercise from January 2000 to October 2000.

On April 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion and a motion for

sanctions. Plaintiff argues that when defendants gave him their trial exhibits at the March 31,

2006, trial confirmation hearing, they included a “smoking gun” memorandum. This

memorandum, dated February 21, 2000, attached to plaintiff’s motion, states that Facility A has

been lockdown since February 17, 2001. This memorandum also contains a handwritten notation

stating, “unlock on February 22, 2001.” Plaintiff argues that this memorandum shows that his

earlier filed summary judgment motion should have been granted.

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 193 Filed 05/02/06 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

2

On April 11, 2006, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s summary

judgment motion. Defendants state, and this court agrees, that the date of the memorandum is a

clerical error. The date of the memorandum should have been February 21, 2001. This

document does not support plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to summary judgment based on the

events occurring in 2000. In addition, after reviewing the record, the court finds that sanctions

are not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 7, 2006, motion for

summary judgment and sanctions is denied.

Dated: May 1, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 193 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2