Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Asberry
Plaintiff
City of Sacramento
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of a letter from the City Attorney

requesting that the court withdraw its sanctions order. Although

not in proper form, nor supported properly, the court treats the

letter as a formal motion.

The court is also in receipt of the plaintiff’s opposition.

In light of that opposition, the motion is DENIED.

Given that Mr. Jackson provided copies of his letter to the

Mayor, City Manager and members of the City Council, and given that

the letter apparently contained misinformation concerning the

events underlying the court’s order, and given the court’s desire

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 35 Filed 06/08/05 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

2

to maintain appropriate relations with the City, the City Attorney

is now ordered to provided those city officials with a copy of the

plaintiff’s opposition as well as provide the court with notice of

the service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 35 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2