Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00347/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as Moot; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Brown347misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. MC GARVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-0347 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AS

MOOT; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS 

(Docket Nos. 16, 19)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Quentin State Prison officials. On June 1, 2005, the

Court reviewed the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed

one of Plaintiff’s claims and ordered service of the amended complaint as to Plaintiff’s

remaining claim. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without

prejudice. Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file an appeal and a motion

for sanctions. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no.

16) as moot and DENY Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 19). 

\\\

\\\

*Original filed 3/21/06

Case 5:04-cv-00347-JF Document 36 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as Moot; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Brown347misc 2

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time requesting that the Court extend time

for him to file a notice of appeal based on the Court’s denial of appointment of counsel

and partial dismissal order. Plaintiff requests this extension due to numerous prison

lockdowns which limit his access to the law library. However, upon review of the

Court’s docket, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 30, 2005, which was dismissed

by the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction on October 14, 2005. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (docket no. 16) is DENIED as moot. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

On August 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against California

Attorney General Lockyer, his subordinates and employees for failure to respond or

answer the Court’s June 1, 2005 order of service. Plaintiff asks the Court to impose

monetary sanctions for Defendants delay in filing a response. Upon review of the docket,

the summons were executed and returned by the Attorney General’s Office on July 25,

2005. On October 12, 2005, Defendants’ counsel filed a motion for an extension of time

to file a dispositive motion or indicate that the case could not be resolved by such motion. 

Defendants’ counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on December 12, 2005. While

Defendants response was untimely, the Court concludes that such conduct does not

warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions. Monetary sanctions may be imposed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and

vexatiously multiplies proceedings, or the court’s inherent power. Fink v. Gomez, 239

F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no.

19) is DENIED. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\ 

Case 5:04-cv-00347-JF Document 36 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as Moot; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Brown347misc 3

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 16) is DENIED as moot. 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 19) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/20/06 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00347-JF Document 36 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as Moot; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Brown347misc 4

This is to certify that on , a copy of this ruling

was mailed to the following:

Michael Brown

T-70229

CSP - Solano

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696

Timothy J. McDonough

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case 5:04-cv-00347-JF Document 36 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4