Fine

(PC) Singanonh v. Fine

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 30, 20212:18-cv-01824California1,896 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TIENGKHAM SINGANONH, No. 2:18-cv-1824 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS R. FINE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendant’s motion for monetary and/or terminating sanctions. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff has not responded. I. Procedural History On June 28, 2021, defendant filed a motion to compel alleging that plaintiff had completely failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. ECF No. 52. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion despite the court extending his time to do so and advising him that failure to respond would be construed as consent to granting the motion, and the motion to compel was granted. ECF No. 54. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production without objection, and was warned that…

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.