Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIS KING, et al, CASE NO. CV F 04-6598 LJO

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

vs. (Doc. 46.)

FRESNO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

et al,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Jeremy King (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

wrongful death and related action. On November 23, 2004, attorney Steven Geringer (“Mr. Geringer”)

filed this action for plaintiff the three other plaintiffs who have dismissed their claims, leaving plaintiff

as the sole remaining plaintiff in this action. On August 9, 2005, Mr. Geringer and plaintiff filed a

substitution of attorney to substitute plaintiff in place of Mr. Geringer. This Court conducted an October

4, 2005 scheduling conference at which attorney Juan Falcon specially appeared for plaintiff. This Court

issued its October 7, 2005 order to relieve Mr. Geringer as plaintiff’s counsel.

Defense counsel apparently set and/or attempted to take plaintiff’s June 1 or 2, 2006 deposition

in prison. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed his “Motion in Opposition of Taking of Deposition in

Violation of Rule 30(a)(2); Rule 30(b)(1); Request for Sanction Thereof” (“sanctions motion”). The

sanctions motion claims that defense counsel violated “rules of federal civil procedure, and has further

failed to serve plaintiff with numerous filings.” The sanctions motion issue takes issue with setting

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 47 Filed 06/07/06 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

plaintiff’s deposition for, among other reasons, defense counsel’s failure to obtain leave of court to

depose plaintiff in prison to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2). The sanctions order asks to impose

against defense counsel unspecified monetary sanctions, a contempt order, and an order that defense

counsel “immediately serve all prior filing and documents, requests, etc.”

Defense counsel is not required to serve all prior papers on plaintiff. Defense counsel properly

served papers on Mr. Geringer when Mr. Geringer represented plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff has failed

to honor his affirmative duty to inform the Court and opposing parties of his current address. If a

plaintiff moves and fails to file a notice of change of address, service of Court orders at plaintiff's prior

address shall constitute effective notice. See Local Rule 83-183(b). If mail directed to plaintiff is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, the Court will not attempt to remail it. If the

address is not updated within 60 days of the mail being returned, the action will be dismissed for failure

to prosecute. See Local Rule 83-183(b). 

Plaintiff fails to substantiate his requested relief. As such, this Court DENIES the relief sought

by the sanctions motion and ADMONISHES plaintiff to inform this Court and opposing parties of his

current address and to comply with Local Rule 83-183(b).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 47 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2