Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04264/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04264-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEAN WOLFE

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAM COGBILL; DR. BROWN;

L. ERSKINE; N. BELOBERK,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4264 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;

SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 27)

Plaintiff Steven Dean Wolfe, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of the

Sonoma County Jail, where plaintiff formerly was housed. Defendants Cogbill, Erskine

and Beloberk have filed a joint motion for summary judgment and defendant Brown has

filed a separate motion for summary judgment, to which plaintiff has file a single,

consolidated opposition. Additionally, plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions, asserting

therein that defendants violated the Court’s Order of Service by failing to file, and serve

plaintiff with, plaintiff’s dental x-ray films. To that motion, defendants Cogbill, Erskine

and Beloberk have filed a joint opposition and defendant Brown has filed a separate

opposition. Included with defendant Brown’s opposition is a copy of the subject x-ray

films.

//

Case 3:05-cv-04264-MMC Document 34 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

2. With respect to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiff, at his

election and for the sole purpose of addressing the x-rays, may file a supplemental

opposition. If plaintiff chooses to supplement his opposition to address the x-rays, he may

do so by filing, and serving upon defendants, a supplemental opposition within 30 days of

the date this order is filed. Defendants shall file a supplemental reply within 14 days of

the date any supplemental opposition is filed. 

This order terminates Docket No. 27.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04264-MMC Document 34 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2