Singleton v. Fortune et al

Filing 44

ORDER DISCHARGING 40 Order to Show Cause and Deeming Answer Timely Filed signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMAR SINGLETON, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:17-cv-00124-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND DEEMING ANSWER
TIMELY FILED
(ECF No. 40.)

DR. FORTUNE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Lamar Singleton, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First Amended

20

Complaint filed on February 19, 2016, against defendant Fortune (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s

21

medical claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.)

22

On March 16, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Defendant to show cause why

23

he had not filed a responsive pleading pursuant to the court’s order issued on January 27, 2017.

24

(ECF No. 40.) On March 17, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer and a declaration in response to

25

the order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.)

26

II.

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

27

Counsel for Defendant (“Counsel”) responds that he inadvertently failed to file a timely

28

responsive pleading for Defendant pursuant to the court’s order of January 27, 2017. (Feser

1

Decl. ¶5.) He takes full responsibility for the error and cites a heavy caseload which likely

2

contributed to his failure to file the response. (Id. ¶5.)

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

752, 764-66 (1980). Here, the court finds no evidence of bad faith or willful disobedience by

7

Counsel in failing to comply with the court’s order of January 17, 2017. Counsel has diligently

8

and promptly responded to the court’s order to show cause and filed an Answer in compliance

9

with the court’s order of January 17, 2017. Therefore, the court’s order to show cause shall be

10

discharged without imposing sanctions, and Defendant Fortune’s Answer, filed on March 16,

11

2017, shall be deemed timely filed.

12

III.

CONCLUSION

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15
16

The court’s order to show cause, issued on March 16, 2017, is DISCHARGED
without imposing sanctions; and

2.

17

Defendant Fortune’s Answer, filed on March 16, 2017, is DEEMED timely
filed.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 17, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE