Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. No. 53)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Motion of Termination and 

Sanction,” construed as a motion for sanctions, filed August 19, 2022. (Doc. No. 53). Plaintiff, 

who is pro se, requests sanctions against defense counsel for not providing him with a notice of 

appearance and for allegedly taking part in the July 18, 2022, Settlement Conference in bad faith. 

(Doc. No. 53 at 1-2). Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel “wasted the time of the court and 

resource[s].” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff says he offered to settle for a sum certain and Defendant did not 

make a counteroffer. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff contends Defendant only appeared at the settlement 

conference to delay the proceedings of the case without any intention to settle. (Id. at 3). 

Defendant filed an opposition and a supplemental brief. (Doc. Nos. 55, 58). Defendant 

states he provided notice of his appearance to Plaintiff as reflected by the docket and argues he 

had no duty to make a counteroffer to Plaintiff’s demand. (Doc. No. 58 at 1). Defendant also 

disputed the merits of Plaintiff’s case. (Id. at 1-4). 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 62 Filed 11/23/22 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff cites to no legal authority in support of his motion. Nor has the Court located any 

authority that requires a party to make a counteroffer to another party’s demand during a 

settlement conference. Further, other than Plaintiff’s suspicions, Plaintiff offers no evidence that 

Defendant participated in the settlement conference in bad faith or wasted the court’s time. 

Notably, there is nothing in the minutes from the July 18, 2022, Settlement Conference to suggest 

that Defendant did not participate in the settlement conference in good faith. (See Doc. No. 51). 

Finally, defense counsel did provide Plaintiff with a notice of the change of counsel as evidenced

by the docket. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 55).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 53) is DENIED. 

Dated: November 23, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 62 Filed 11/23/22 Page 2 of 2