(PS) White v. County of Sacramento, 2:23-cv-01857

Plaintiff Eugene White filed multiple motions in a civil rights case against the County of Sacramento and related parties.
In a six-week period, Plaintiff submitted nine motions, five of which were filed on the same day.
Defendants filed a motion to regulate Plaintiff's future interactions with defense counsel and witnesses, set for hearing on August 14, 2025.
Several of Plaintiff’s motions addressed procedural and court oversight issues, requests for sanctions, amendments to the complaint, and efforts to strike portions of the record.
The Court addressed and denied, without further hearings or briefings, Plaintiff’s five most recent motions due to lack of legal basis, procedural deficiencies, or untimeliness.
The Court reserved separate decision on discovery-related motions and scheduled a status conference, cautioning parties against further filings outside of relief from irreparable harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Termination of Magistrate Referral	Magistrate referral should end to preserve Article III rights	No argument stated	Denied
Sanctions Against Defense Counsel	Defense counsel engaged in improper conduct and sought obstruction	No argument stated	Denied
Leave to Amend Complaint	Amendment restores federal character and addresses past counsel issues	No argument stated	Denied
Striking Defendant Filings	Filings are irrelevant, malicious, or legally improper	No argument stated	Denied

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (establishes good cause standard for modifying scheduling orders to amend pleadings)
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (requirement to show good cause for post-deadline amendments)
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft, Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (describes purpose and function of Rule 12(f) motions to strike)
Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (motions to strike are generally disfavored)