Johnson v. Beard

Filing 215

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/28/2022 DENYING the 201 Motion for Sanctions. (Spichka, K.)

Case 2:15-cv-01313-TLN-KJN Document 215 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL DAVID JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:15-cv-1313 TLN KJN P

ORDER

J.A. BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under

17
18

Rules 11(c) and 37(d)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Collinsworth filed

19

an opposition. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

20

Sanctions Under Rule 11
Plaintiff contends that defendants should be sanctioned because they failed to answer the

21
22

third amended complaint, delayed the case, and refused to proceed to trial. (ECF No. 201 at 2.)

23

He argues that defendants have “misrepresented the issues when in fact there is a genuine issue

24

that needs to be handled by a jury trial.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that lawyers have been ordered to

25

show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments. (ECF No. 201 at

26

5.)

27

“Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of

28

‘reasonable inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well-grounded in fact, legally
1

Case 2:15-cv-01313-TLN-KJN Document 215 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 3
1

tenable, and not interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of Southern

2

California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v.

3

Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). A motion pursuant to Rule 11 has stringent notice

4

and filing requirements. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 11

5

includes a “safe harbor” provision that the court strictly enforces. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2)

6

(“The motion must be served . . . but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the

7

challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected

8

within 21 days after service. . . .”); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 677.

9

First, to the extent plaintiff seeks sanctions as to defendants Naku, Mahmoud, and Chen,

10

plaintiff’s motion fails. Defendant Naku is not represented by counsel, and on April 27, 2021

11

clerk’s default was entered based on Naku’s failure to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 136.)

12

Motions to dismiss filed by defendants Mahmoud and Chen were granted without leave to amend.

13

(ECF Nos. 106, 185.) Defendant Collinsworth’s motion to dismiss is pending. (ECF No. 207.)

14

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is construed as directed toward defendant Collinsworth.

15
16

Second, plaintiff’s motion must be denied because he failed to comply with the “safe
harbor” provision of Rule 11(b).

17

Third, plaintiff’s motion fails on the merits. Plaintiff identifies no misrepresentations

18

made by defendant Collinsworth or his counsel as required under Rule 11. Plaintiff’s conclusory

19

claim that the motion to dismiss is “frivolous” is unsupported by specific facts and therefore

20

unavailing. In addition, as argued by defendant Collinsworth, defendant’s motion to dismiss

21

relieved Collinsworth of his obligation to file an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) (serving a

22

motion to dismiss alters the deadlines for filing a responsive pleading). Thus, defendant

23

Collinsworth has not failed to defend as plaintiff contends (ECF No. 201 at 2).
For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is denied. 1

24
25

////

26

1

27
28

The court agrees that plaintiff’s case has been subject to myriad delays. However, there have
been multiple amendments to the complaint, multiple motions to dismiss, requests for
reconsideration, and difficulties in serving defendants, all of which have contributed to such
delays. Review of the record reflects no intentional delay by defendants.
2

Case 2:15-cv-01313-TLN-KJN Document 215 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 3
1

Sanctions Under Rule 37(d)(b)

2

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs failures to make disclosures or

3

cooperate in discovery. Id. Rule 37(d) specifically addresses a party’s failure to attend its own

4

deposition, serve answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection. Here, no

5

discovery and scheduling order has issued, and no discovery has been propounded. Thus, Rule

6

37 does not apply. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 37 is denied. 2

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No.

8

201) is denied.

9

Dated: November 28, 2022

10
11
12
13

/john1313.sanc

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff included a list of cases addressing the issue of untimely requests for jury trial and
waiving a jury demand. (ECF No. 201 at 3-4.) It is unclear how such cases apply here, but
plaintiff has not waived his request for jury trial which was included in his original complaint
(ECF No. 1 at 17).
3