Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-32/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

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, WITH 

PREJUDICE

(Docs. 126 and 128)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Darren Harris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 3, 2005. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff=s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Olivarria, Williams, and Kim for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Olivarria and Lowden for violation of 

the First Amendment. 

A. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

On November 26, 2013, the Court issued a twelve-page order granting in part and denying 

in part Plaintiff‟s motion to compel. Defendants were ordered to serve supplemental responses 

within thirty days; the meet and confer requirement was re-imposed on the parties; Plaintiff was 

ordered to notify Defendants‟ counsel within fifteen days of receipt of the supplemental responses 

if he was dissatisfied with any of them; Defendants‟ counsel was ordered to arrange an in-person 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 130 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 3
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

or telephonic meeting within fifteen days of receiving a letter of dissatisfaction from Plaintiff; and 

Plaintiff was granted one-hundred five days within which to file a motion to compel, if one was 

necessary. The order was clear regarding the parties‟ obligations and the limited relief available to 

Plaintiff with respect to this final round of discovery.

Based on the parties‟ subsequent filings, discussed in section B, Plaintiff was dissatisfied 

with some of the supplemental responses and he sent counsel a letter on January 5, 2014. Counsel 

responded by letter dated January 27, 2014, and offered to arrange a telephone conference if 

needed. Ultimately, the parties conferred by telephone on February 13, 2014. 

B. Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking sanctions against Defendants‟ 

counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Defendants filed an opposition on February 18, 

2014, and on March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the opposition, which the Court 

construes as Plaintiff‟s reply in light of the fact that Plaintiff‟s disagreement with Defendants‟ 

response provides no basis for striking the filing.1See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); Sidney-Vinstein v. 

A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff‟s motion for Rule 11 sanctions has 

been submitted upon the record without oral argument and for the reasons which follow, it is 

denied with prejudice. Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion and Order

“Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of 

„reasonable inquiry‟ so that anything filed with the court is „well grounded in fact, legally tenable, 

and not interposed for any improper purpose.‟” Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. 

F.B.I., __ F.3d __, __. No. 12-55305, 2014 WL 1013324, at *__ (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014) (per 

curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990)).

Plaintiff‟s Rule 11 motion fails as a matter of law. First, Plaintiff is dissatisfied with 

counsel over the supplemental discovery responses and compliance with the meet and confer 

 

1

Plaintiff‟s reply is twenty-one pages long and includes such irrelevant issues as Plaintiff‟s settlement demand. The 

Court does not reach the arguments therein because: 1) Plaintiff did not meet his initial burden as the party moving for 

sanctions under Rule 11, and 2) pursuant to the order of November 26, 2013, Plaintiff was limited to seeking relief 

from the Court in the form of a motion to compel. Plaintiff was not granted leave to lay at the feet of the Court issues 

with the parties‟ meet and confer attempts.

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 130 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

requirement. Thus, there is no purportedly baseless filing with the Court, a necessary 

underpinning for a Rule 11 motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Second, Plaintiff‟s motion was filed in 

violation of the twenty-one day “safe harbor provision,” a provision which is strictly enforced. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005). 

For these reasons, Plaintiff‟s Rule 11 motion, filed on January 31, 2014, is HEREBY 

DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 130 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 3