Gillam et al v. City of Vallejo, et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/8/15: Within 21 days of this order, plaintiffs shall pay to the Clerk of Court a total of $100.00 in monetary sanctions based on their failure to comply with the courts April 2, 2015 order. Within 21 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer, prepare, and file an updated joint status report regarding scheduling of the case. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA
GILLAM,
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER
v.

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to obtain counsel

17
18

and continued the temporary stay of formal discovery and motion practice until a scheduling

19

order or other appropriate order issues. (ECF No. 16.) However, the court’s order made clear

20

that “[w]hether or not plaintiffs successfully retain an attorney, plaintiffs and defendants shall

21

meet and confer, and then file an updated joint status report with proposed dates for scheduling

22

the case no later than June 1, 2015.” (Id.)
On June 1, 2015, defendants filed a separate status report, indicating that the parties could

23
24

not agree on a proposed schedule for the case, and that plaintiffs would apparently be submitting

25

their own status report. (ECF No. 19.) However, plaintiffs failed to file any status report by the

26

required deadline. Nor did they timely request an extension of time to comply with the court’s

27

order.

28

////
1

1

In the past, the court has been lenient and has generously granted plaintiffs extensions of

2

time. However, the court has also previously cautioned plaintiffs that failure to comply with

3

court orders may result in sanctions. (ECF No. 14 at 2 n.1.) Although the court liberally

4

construes the pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are nonetheless expected to comply

5

with court deadlines and procedures. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to impose

6

monetary sanctions based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s order to file a joint

7

status report. Because the court is cognizant that plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the

8

amount of sanctions imposed is necessarily minimal.

9

Finally, the court once again orders the parties to properly meet and confer and file an

10

updated joint status report regarding scheduling of the case. If the parties disagree as to any issue,

11

the parties may set forth their differences with respect to that issue, and the reasons for those

12

differences, in the report, but their mere disagreement as to issues does not excuse the obligation

13

to file a joint status report. Sanctions will be imposed on any party who fails to participate in

14

good faith in the preparation and filing of the joint status report.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. Within 21 days of this order, plaintiffs shall pay to the Clerk of Court a total of

17

$100.00 in monetary sanctions based on their failure to comply with the court’s April

18

2, 2015 order.

19
20
21
22
23
24

2. Within 21 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer, prepare, and file an
updated joint status report regarding scheduling of the case.
3. Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions, including
potential dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2015

25
26
27
28
2