Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND REQUEST TO DENY

EXTENSION TO DEFENDANTS TO

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(Doc. 54)

Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2009. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2010, against: 1) Defendants R. Nicholas,

A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Coontz, M.

Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yubeta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, and

Valasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) Defendant Holguin for retaliation in violation

of the First Amendment and 3) Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for supervisory liability. Doc.

21; Doc. 23, Doc. 28.1

On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on the grounds that Defendants

filed a motion for extension of time in order to intentionally cause delay and circumvent their

responsibility to comply with discovery rules. (Doc. 54). Plaintiff further requests that the Court

Defendants Hopkins, Eubanks, Nipper Stevenson and Lundy were dismissed pursuant to the order filed

1

September 3, 2010, adopting the Court’s findings and recommendations. Doc. 28. Defendant “Crouch” was

dismissed regarding counts 12, 14, 15 for due process and retaliation, however, the Court found a cognizable Eighth

Amendment Claim Defendant “T. Crouch.” Doc. 23 at 3, 8; Doc. 28.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 56 Filed 11/16/11 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

deny Defendants’ request for an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s numerous discovery requests for

66 sets of interrogatories so that Plaintiff can submit a motion to compel. (Doc. 54).

Federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for attorney misconduct and such

sanctions include an award of attorney’s fees, against attorneys and parties for “bad faith” conduct,

or “willful disobedience” of a court order. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991);

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-766 (1980); In re Akros Installations, Inc., 834

F.2d 1526, 1532 (9th Cir. 1987); see Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 43 F.3d

65, 73 (3rd Cir. 1995). “Bad faith” means a party or counsel acted “vexatiously, wantonly or for

oppressive reasons.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-46; see Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness

Society, 421 U.S. 240, 258-259 (1975).

Bad faith is tested objectively. “[A] district court’s finding of bad faith or the absence of bad

faith in a particular case is a factual determination and may be reversed only if it is clearly

erroneous.” Ford v. Temple Hosp., 790 F.2d 342, 347 (3rd Cir. 1986); see Baker v. Cerberus, Ltd.,

764 F.2d 204, 210 (3rd Cir. 1985); Perichak v. International Union of Elec. Radio, 715 F.2d 78, 79

(3rd Cir. 1983). There must be “some indication of an intentional advancement of a baseless

contention that is made for an ulterior purpose, e.g., harassment or delay.” Ford, 790 F.2d at 347.

Defendants do not appear to have engaged in bad faith conduct in requesting extensions to

respond to pending discovery requests especially in light of the numerosity of the requests. 

Moreover, the Court has already granted Defendants’ request for extension and Plaintiff’s request

to deny the extension is moot.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 16, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 56 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 2