Barber

(PC) Wilkins v. Barber

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 3, 20202:19-cv-01338California352 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P

BROWN,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 30, 2020, plaintiff signed and presented to prison authorities for mailing, a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion accompanied his objections to the January 24, 2020 findings and recommendations. On February 25, 2020, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations over plaintiff’s objections. Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the moving party serve the motion for sanctions on the offending party 21 days before filing it with the court. Accord Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a movant satisfies Rule 11’s “mandatory 21 day safe-harbor period” by serving “the allegedly offending party with a filing-ready…

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.