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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?