Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-44/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGGIE FRANCIS,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTING 

PLAINTIFF’S AGREEMENT WITH

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Docs. 158, 159.

Plaintiff Etuate Sekona is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Francis. This action is set 

for trial on September 10, 2024, on Sekona’s claim against Francis for deliberate indifference to 

Sekona’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Sekona moves for 

sanctions regarding defendant’s alleged failure to provide her trial exhibits by the deadline set in 

the court’s amended final pretrial order. Doc. 158. Sekona also filed a one-page document, 

which he captioned as a “motion,” noting his agreement with defendant’s proposed jury 

instructions. Doc. 159.

I. ANALYSIS

A. Sekona’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 158)

Construing Sekona motion for sanctions liberally, he appears to argue that defendant did 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 08/30/24 Page 1 of 3
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

not timely produce her trial exhibits. Doc. 158. Specifically, Sekona’s motion, which he served 

on August 26, 2024, and which was filed on August 28, 2024, alleges that he did not have 

defendant’s “trial exhibits” and had not received defendant’s “pretrial status reports” by the 

deadline date. Id. at 1. He notes that the August 23, 2024, date for objections to exhibits had also

passed. Id. at 1. Sekona further asserts that he sent his “pretrial statement evidence” to defendant 

on August 8, 2024. Id. The court construes Sekona’s allegations regarding “pretrial status 

reports” and “pretrial statement evidence” to refer to the parties’ trial exhibits. The amended final 

pretrial order required the parties to exchange trial exhibits by August 9, 2024, and set a deadline 

of August 23, 2024 for the filing of objections to the other party’s exhibits. Doc. 127 at Id. 

Defendant has submitted a proof of service with her exhibit list indicating that she served 

her trial exhibits on Sekona on July 11, 2023, over one year ago. Doc. 161. The court’s previous 

pretrial order had set July 11, 2023, as the date for the parties to exchange trial exhibits. In his

declaration filed on August 19, 2024, defense counsel confirms that defendant served Sekona 

with her exhibits in July 2023, although he indicates there is some confusion as to the exact date 

in July 2023 when they were served, notwithstanding the proof of service dated July 11, 2023. 

See Doc. 148 at 2. Defense counsel also served a second copy set of defendant’s exhibits on 

Sekona, on August 28, 2024. Doc. 160.

Even with the possible discrepancy as to the exact date in July 2023 when defendant first 

served her exhibits on Sekona, the record reflects that Sekona has been served twice with 

defendant’s trial exhibits: first in July 2023 and then on August 28, 2024. Sekona’s motion for 

sanctions (Doc. 158) is therefore denied based on the record before the court. However, Sekona 

indicates that, based on the amended final pretrial order, he expected defendant to serve a new set 

of her trial exhibits by August 9, 2024. Defendant did not do so until August 28, 2024, and 

Sekona argues that he was unable to file his objections by August 23, 2024. Given these 

circumstances, if Sekona has objections to defendant’s trial exhibits, he may raise such objections

at trial.

B. Sekona’s filing stating his agreement with proposed jury instructions (Doc. 159)

Although Sekona’s filing at Doc. 159 is captioned as a “motion,” it does not seek any 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 08/30/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

relief by way of motion. Rather, in this filing Sekona informs the court and defendant that he 

agrees with defendant’s proposed jury instructions. See Doc. 159. In the amended final pretrial 

order, the court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding jury instructions, but Sekona 

was not required to file proposed jury instructions himself. See Doc. 127. Sekona was instructed 

to notify the court if he had any objections to defendant’s proposed jury instructions. Id. at 15. 

The court construes Sekona’s filing at Doc. 159 as his notice of agreement with defendant’s 

proposed jury instructions.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions (Doc. 158) is DENIED, but plaintiff may 

raise at trial any objections he may have to defendant’s trial exhibits; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for acceptance of jury instructions (Doc. 159) is construed as 

plaintiff’s notice of agreement with defendant’s proposed jury instructions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 08/30/24 Page 3 of 3