K'napp v. Adams et al

Filing 118

ORDER For Defendants To SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed For Failure To Fully Comply With Court Order (Doc. 115 ), Thirty Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/5/2014. Show Cause Response due by 3/10/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FULLY
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
(Doc. 115.)

vs.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND
Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this

21

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

22

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the

23

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants

24

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S.

25

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff

26

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and

27

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator

28

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5
1

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

1

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First

2

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.)

3

On December 9, 2013, the court issued an order requiring Defendants to file an

4

opposition or notice of non-opposition to each of Plaintiff’s four pending motions to compel,

5

by January 24, 2014. (Doc. 115.) On January 23, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to three

6

of Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel. (Doc. 116.) However, to date Defendants have not

7

filed a response to Plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion to compel. (Court Record.)

8

II.

SANCTIONS

9

Federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions against both attorneys and

10

parties for "bad faith" conduct in litigation or for "willful disobedience" of a court order.

11

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S.

12

752, 764-66 (1980). The Court may assess attorney fees or other sanctions under its inherent

13

power for the Awilful disobedience of a court order.@ Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45; Alyeska

14

Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 258 (1975). A fee award under the

15

Court=s inherent power is meant to vindicate judicial authority, rather than to provide a

16

substantive remedy to an aggrieved party: AThe wrong done was to the court.@ Mark Industries,

17

Ltd. v. Sea Captain=s Choice, Inc., 50 F.3d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1995).

18
19
20
21
22

Defendants shall be granted thirty days in which to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed for their failure to fully comply with the court’s order of December 9, 2013.
III.

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of

service of this order, Defendants shall respond to this order, showing cause why sanctions

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him
indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the
May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff
for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court
based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants
Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims
against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were
dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

2

1

should not be imposed for their failure to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to

2

Plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion to compel, as required by the court’s order of December

3

9, 2013.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8
9
10

February 5, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3