Holstein

(PC) Flannery v. Holstein

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 7, 20252:22-cv-01518California2,072 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ORVAL D. FLANNERY, No. 2:22-cv-01518 DC SCR P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS HOLSTEIN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. Defendants Holstein, Harmon, and Barb have filed a motion for sanctions and to compel discovery responses. (ECF No. 26.) For the reasons set out below, the court recommends defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part as follows: (1) defendants’ request for monetary sanctions should be denied; (2) defendants’ request for terminating sanctions should be granted and the action be dismissed without prejudice; and (3) defendants’ request to compel plaintiff’s discovery responses should be denied as moot. I. Background and Procedural History Plaintiff filed this action on August 29,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.