Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Roberts v. Beard

United States District Court, S.D. California

October 30, 2019

TONY ROBERTS, Plaintiff
v.
J. BEARD, Secretary of CDCR; D. PARAMO, Warden of RJDCF; et al., Defendants

          ORDER

          Hon. William Q. Hayes, Judge.

         The matter before the Court is the Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff Tony Roberts. (ECF No. 204).

         BACKGROUND

         On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants A. Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R, Santiago, K. Seibel, and R. Solis for violation of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1).

         On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2). On May 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 4).

         On September 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims except for the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro for sexual assault. (ECF No. 46).

         On September 24, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff as to his remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro, and as to his First Amendment claim for the allegedly false and retaliatory April 2, 2014 rules violation report. (ECF No. 136). The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the grounds of exhaustion. The Court remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the prison improperly failed to process Plaintiff's alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8, 2014, such that Plaintiff's failure to exhaust would be excused.

         On November 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge vacated the scheduled evidentiary hearing “[i]n light of the fact that Defendants have withdrawn their defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies.” ECF No. 170 at 1; see also ECF Nos. 169, 166 (noting withdrawal of exhaustion defense).

         On March 14, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff's state law claims and granted summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Defendants Solis, Santiago, and Seibel. (ECF No. 178). The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and Buenrosto.

         On May 22, 2019, Defendants[1] filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff made untrue statements in his motion to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 189). On August 2, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 198).

         On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 199).

         On August 13, 2019, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $884.70. (ECF No. 200). On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 202). On September 17, 2019, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in amount of $559.70 against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 203).

         On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Taxation of Costs. (ECF No. 204). Defendants have not filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

         PLAINTIFF'S ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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