Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Grannis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 1, 2009

SHADALE L. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
N. GRANNIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Doc. 43) ORDER RE MOTION FOR COURT ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 37) ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS/COURT DOCUMENTS (Doc. 51)

I. Background

Plaintiff Shadale Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against defendants Lopez, Brubaker, Hill, Arlitz, Grannis, Bautista, Tyson, Hedgpeth and Spaeth ("Defendants").

On August 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing defendants to respond to his complaint and for money sanctions. (Doc. 37.) On August 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (Doc. 43.)

II. Motion for Entry of Default

On June 25, 2008, defendants Grannis, Brubaker, Hill, Arlitz, Tyson, and Spaeth filed a motion seeking to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) on the ground that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. (Doc. 25.) On July 17 and 28, 2008, and August 5, 2008, defendants Bautista, Lopez and Hedgpeth respectively moved to join the motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. (Docs. 32, 33, 35.)

Defendants filed their motions prior to Plaintiff's request for entry of default. The motions indicate an intent to defend the action. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F2d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 1988) (responses indicating defendant's intent to defend the suit prevents entry of default). Plaintiff's request for entry of default is DENIED.

III. Motion for Responsive Pleading and Money Sanctions

On August 29, 2008, the Court issued an order denying Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status without prejudice and ordered Defendants to serve and file a response to Plaintiff's complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 40.) Defendants filed an answer on October 1, 2008. (Doc. 46.)

Plaintiff's motion for a Court order commanding Defendants to reply to his complaint, filed August 3, 2008, is DISREGARDED as MOOT.

Plaintiff's also seeks money sanctions on the grounds of unreasonable and undue delay. The Court does not find that money sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff's request is denied.

IV. Motion for Transcripts and Court Documents

On December 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed with the District Court a courtesy copy of Plaintiff's motion for transcripts and court documents filed with the United States Court of Appeals. (Doc. 51.) The motion is not pending before this Court and is therefore DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090601

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.