Hill v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 46

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 43 ; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS re 45 AND REQUIRING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO NOTIFY COURT OF COMPLIANCE WITH 41 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/5/2015. (Filing Deadline: 6/22/2015). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RONNELL HILL,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER (1) DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 43); (2)
DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 45); AND (3) REQUIRING
DEFENSE COUNSEL TO NOTIFY COURT
OF COMPLIANCE WITH ECF No. 41
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

19

Defendant Peterson on Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to courts claim.

20

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his

21

request for production of documents. (ECF No. 36.) Defendant opposed the request.

22

(ECF No. 39.) On April 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the

23

request, and ordered Defendant to provide a further response within thirty days. (ECF

24

No. 41.)

25

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, stating that defense

26

counsel failed to respond to interrogatories within the allotted time. (ECF No. 40.)

27

Defendant filed no response. On April 30, 2015, the Court granted the motion to compel,

28

1

ordered Defendant to respond, and ordered Defendant to show cause why she should

2

not be sanctioned for failing to respond in the first instance. (ECF No. 43.)

3

On May 14, 2015, defense counsel responded to the order to show cause. (ECF

4

No. 44.) Counsel explained that Plaintiff’s interrogatories were forwarded to counsel’s

5

legal staff for processing, but inadvertently not calendared or entered into counsel’s

6

database.

7

subsequently suffered from a serious medical condition requiring admission to the

8

Emergency Room and substantial time off work. He states that he responded to

9

Plaintiff’s interrogatories on May 14, 2015, in compliance with the Court’s order granting

10

The

interrogatories

themselves

were

misplaced.

Defense

counsel

the motion to compel.

11

On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document styled, “Defendants Failure to Comply

12

with Court Order.” (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff stated that, as of April 29, 2015, defense

13

counsel had not complied with the Court’s April 14, 2015 order granting in part and

14

denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. He requested that Defendant be sanctioned

15

$50.00.

16

Although the clerical errors that led to counsel’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s

17

interrogatories are not excusable, the Court nevertheless will discharge the order to

18

show cause based on delays caused by defense counsel’s unanticipated medical

19

condition.

20

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in relation to the Court’s April 14, 2015 order will

21

be denied. In that order, the Court afforded Defendant thirty days in which to respond.

22

Thus, Defendant’s failure to respond by April 29, 2015 is not in violation of the order and

23

does not warrant the imposition of sanctions. Nevertheless, in light of Defendant’s prior

24

difficulties responding to discovery, the Court will order Defendant to file a notice of

25

compliance with the April 14, 2015 order within fourteen days.

26

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

27
28

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 43), filed April 30, 2015, is HEREBY
DISCHARGED;
2

1

2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions (ECF No. 45) is DENIED; and

2

3. Defendant is ordered to file a notice of compliance with ECF No. 41 within

3

fourteen days.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2015

/s/

7

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3