Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-13/pdf.json

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

---

1

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 

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendant Balcagon for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against 

Defendants Perryman and Harder for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Defendant Balcagon filed an answer on July 24, 2012. Defendants Perryman and Harder answered the 

complaint on October 16, 2013, before this action was consolidated on December 17, 2013. 

Following consolidation, on December 18, 2013, the Court issued an Amended Discovery and 

Scheduling Order for the limited purpose of discovery on the claim against Defendants Perryman and 

Harder. Pursuant to that order, the deadline to complete all discovery regarding the claim against 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA BADAGON,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00736 -LJO-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR FEDERAL INQUEST

(ECF No. 53) 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 55 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendants Perryman and Harder was March 22, 2014. The dispositive motion deadline for all claims 

is April 24, 2014. (ECF No. 41.) 

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a state and federal inquest and 

sanctions. Plaintiff contends that defense counsel conducted an improper deposition in the latter part 

of March 2014. Plaintiff argues that the deposition should not have been permitted because discovery 

had not been opened in this action. Plaintiff claims that he was recently notified that discovery had 

not been opened when he filed a motion for default judgment. Plaintiff claims that all of his motions 

in this action have been denied because discovery has not been opened. (ECF No. 53.) 

There is no basis for the Court to order an inquest regarding the deposition conducted in March 

2014. Plaintiff’s assertion that discovery had not been opened in this action is not correct. As noted 

above, the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on December 18, 2013, expressly indicated that 

discovery was to proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Perryman and Harder and that 

discovery must be completed by March 22, 2014. 

Plaintiff’s further assertion that his recent motions for default judgment and discovery were 

denied because discovery had not been opened also is not correct. According to the docket in this 

matter, the Court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel discovery filed on March 4, 

2014, or on his pending motion for default judgment filed on April 14, 2014. Plaintiff may be 

confusing this case with one or more of his other cases currently pending in the Eastern District of 

California, including at least two other actions naming Defendant Perryman: (1) Cranford v. 

Perryman, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00763 BAM; and (2) Cranford v. Perryman, et al., Case No. 1:13-

cv-00853 GSA. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an inquest and sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 16, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 55 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 2