Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-9/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 (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

14 DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. No. 53)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting termination and sanctions. (Doc. 

No. 53). The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion as requesting sanctions on defense 

counsel for not providing Plaintiff with a notice of appearance and for participating in the 

settlement conference in bad faith. Plaintiff argues defense counsel did not provide proper notice 

of appearance in accordance with Local Rule 182; specifically, defense counsel did not provide 

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, with the attorney’s notice of appearance. (Doc. No. 53 at 1-2). 

Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions on defense counsel for appearing at the July 18, 2022 

settlement conference in bad faith. (Id.). Plaintiff argues defense counsel “wasted the time of the 

court and resource[s].” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff states that he offered to settle for $5,000.00 but 

Defendant did not provide a counteroffer. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff finally argues that due to 

Defendant’s actions, the Defendant only appeared at the settlement conference to delay 

proceedings of the case and had no intention to settle. (Id. at 3). 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 57 Filed 09/01/22 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

Defendant timely filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on August 24, 2022. (Doc. No. 

55). Defendant’s opposition only addresses Plaintiff’s allegation that defense counsel did not 

provide proper notice of his appearance, it does not address Plaintiff’s allegations that defense 

counsel participated in the settlement conference in bad faith. (See id.). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Withing fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, Defendant shall file a supplemental 

response addressing Plaintiff’s allegations that defense counsel participated in the settlement 

conference in bad faith. 

Dated: September 1, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 57 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2