Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GONZALEZ v. RAZO, 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170713896 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 74) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Manuel Antonio Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which includes attendant state law claims. Plaintiff is represented by attorney Stanley Goff. On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "notification to court of institution not complying with federal court order attorney-client telefonic [sic] appearance
More

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF NO. 74)

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims. Plaintiff is represented by attorney Stanley Goff.

On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "notification to court of institution not complying with federal court order attorney-client telefonic [sic] appearance 7/6/2017; 1:00 p.m." ("the Motion). (ECF No. 74). According to Plaintiff, staff at the prison where Plaintiff is incarcerated refused to comply with a court order allowing a telephone call between Plaintiff and his attorney on July 6, 2017. Plaintiff asks for a court order instructing the litigation coordinator and the warden to comply with court orders and sanctions for violating court orders.

The Motion will be denied because this Court has not ordered staff at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility to facilitate a telephone call between Plaintiff and his attorney on July 6, 2017. The Court did order staff at R.J. Donovan to facilitate a confidential telephone call on June 29, 2017 (ECF No. 72), but Plaintiff does not mention this call or claim that it failed to take place as ordered.

Because there is no court order directing staff at R.J. Donovan to facilitate a telephone call on July 6, 2017, the Motion will be denied.

The Court takes allegations that a prison has ignored its orders very seriously, especially when they concern access to counsel and the courts. If there was an issue with the telephone call that was to take place on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff may file another motion.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Motion is DENIED; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of the order granting in part the motion for facilitated confidential attorney/client phone calls (ECF No. 72) on Manuel Gonzalez.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer