Bivins v. Rodriguez, 2:18-CV-2671-JAM-DMC-P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200109b31
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff seeks an order of contempt against defendant Sarabia "for ignoring several subpoenas and withholding key evidence and information in a federal lawsuit." ECF No. 63, pg. 1. Plaintiff provide
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff seeks an order of contempt against defendant Sarabia "for ignoring several subpoenas and withholding key evidence and information in a federal lawsuit." ECF No. 63, pg. 1. Plaintiff provides..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 63).
Plaintiff seeks an order of contempt against defendant Sarabia "for ignoring several subpoenas and withholding key evidence and information in a federal lawsuit." ECF No. 63, pg. 1. Plaintiff provides no supporting information, argument, or documentation.
Plaintiff's motion will be denied. To the extent plaintiff seeks sanctions for failure to provide discovery, his motion is premature in that the court has not issued a scheduling order opening discovery. Moreover, as a motion to compel discovery and for an award of sanctions, plaintiff's motion is defective in that he has not provided a copy of the discovery in dispute, any indication of a meet-and-confer effort, or any argument as to why discovery should be compelled and sanctions awarded.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 63) is denied.
Source: Leagle
