Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

ORDER – 1 

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

 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C08-1196RAJ 

ORDER ON MOTIONS 

This matter comes before the court on three motions from Plaintiff Robert 

Mitchell. The first is a motion (Dkt. # 36) to amend his complaint. The second is a 

motion (Dkt. # 38) for voluntary dismissal of all claims against Defendants N. Grannis 

and K. Allen. The third is a motion (Dkt. # 39) to impose sanctions on Defendants for 

failing to respond to Mr. Mitchell’s motion to amend. 

The court GRANTS Mr. Mitchell’s motion for voluntary dismissal, dismissing all 

claims against Defendants Grannis and Allen with prejudice. No party has opposed this 

motion. The court directs the clerk to terminate Defendants Grannis and Allen as parties 

in this action. 

The court GRANTS Mr. Mitchell’s motion to amend his complaint. Defendants 

did not oppose the motion, although in response to Mr. Mitchell’s motion for sanctions, 

they stated that they did not oppose the filing of an amended complaint. 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 42 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – 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

The court DENIES Mr. Mitchell’s motion for sanctions. This court’s local rules 

require parties to either oppose motions or file statements of non-opposition, and permits 

a court to impose sanctions for parties who do not comply. LR 230(l). Defendants did 

neither in response to Mr. Mitchell’s motion to amend and his motion for voluntary 

dismissal. Although the court does not condone violations of the local rules, it finds no 

basis for sanctions in this instance. 

The court observes that no party filed a dispositive motion before June 30, 2010, 

the deadline set in the court’s November 11, 2009 order setting a pretrial schedule. Mr. 

Mitchell’s motion to compel discovery responses (Dkt. # 26) remains pending. The court 

will set a trial date or other pretrial deadlines in conjunction with its order resolving that 

motion. 

DATED this 6th day of August, 2010. 

AThe Honorable Richard A. Jones 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 42 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2