Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-21/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BENTACOURT et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01187 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 83, 84)

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DUE IN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, a former State prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This matter is

currently at the discovery phase of the proceedings.

On November 7, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations which 

recommended in relevant part that Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions be granted and 

that Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to appear and be deposed be denied as moot. See

ECF No. 83 at 15. Objections to the order were due in fourteen days. Id.

Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 84. 

In them, Plaintiff states that: (1) in October 2024, he sent a “motion” to the Court which 

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 85 Filed 12/06/24 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

explained why he could not attend the deposition by Defendants; (2) he has not lost interest in this 

case; (3) since he has been home, he has been homeless and his phone was stolen; (4) the many 

motions for the appointment of counsel that he has filed with the Court have been denied; (5) he 

never received the address of where he was to go to attend the deposition until the next day, and 

(6) that he explained this to the Court in the motion that he sent. Id. at 1-2. Finally, Plaintiff 

contends that he should not be sanctioned because he is a pro se litigant. ECF No. 84 at 3. For 

these reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court not dismiss his case and that Defendants be ordered 

to depose him in San Francisco. Id.

Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. Given 1-the length of time 

that this matter has been on the Court’s docket, 2- the terminating nature of the findings and 

recommendations, and 3- Plaintiff’s stated reasons in his objections regarding why he did not 

appear to be deposed by Defendants in Los Angeles, the Court will direct Defendants to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s objections. They will have fourteen days to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days from the date of this 

order, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 84) to the Court’s 

findings and recommendations issued November 7, 2024 (ECF No. 83).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 85 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2