IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2008
CHARLES T. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
D. CALVIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a prisoner without counsel suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion for sanctions. He seeks an order preventing defendants from relying on declarations submitted in support of a motion to dismiss and for monetary sanctions. For the reasons explained below, this motion, filed April 21, 2008, is denied.
On February 14, 2008, defendants McDonald, Roche and James filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. On March 14, 2008, defendants Amero, Houghland and McBride also filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds.*fn1 In his current motion, plaintiff asserts that the declarations attached to the motions to dismiss are false and counsel knew this to be a fact when he submitted them. In support of this assertion, plaintiff points to California regulations governing the exhaustion of available state remedies. He argues that the declarations on which defendants rely intentionally misrepresent how many levels of review plaintiff had to complete in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Defendants correctly point out that they did not rely on plaintiff's failure to pursue his administrative appeal to any particular level. Rather, they argued that plaintiff's failure to exhaust resulted from his refusal to cooperate during the administrative appeals process.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds for sanctions here. The motions to dismiss do not violate Rule 11. To the contrary, the court has addressed those motions and recommended that they be granted. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that counsel has engaged in any misconduct whatsoever and his motion must be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's April 21, 2008, motion for sanctions is denied.