Ray v. Leal et al

Filing 38

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; IMPOSING SANCTIONS; AND GIVING FURTHER DIRECTION TO DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEY AND THE OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/18/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
EDWARD RAY, JR.,

No. C 11-5550 YGR (PR)

3
Plaintiff,
4
5

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE; IMPOSING SANCTIONS; AND GIVING
FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS'
ATTORNEY AND THE OAKLAND CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

v.
A. LEAL, et al.,

6

Defendants.

/

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This is a pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Oakland Police Department
Officers A. Leal, Francis and M. Ziebrath. Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants used excessive
force when they arrested him on August 27, 2006. In an Order dated February 19, 2013, the Court

11

found that Plaintiff's complaint stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Leal, Francis, and

12

Ziebrath for a Fourth Amendment violation. The Court served these Defendants and set a briefing

13

schedule for the motion for summary judgment.

14

In an Order dated May 13, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' request for a second

15

extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 30 at 3. The Court directed

16

Defendants' attorney, Arlene M. Rosen, Esq. from the Oakland City Attorney's Office, to file a

17

motion for summary judgment no later than June 16, 2014. Id. at 5. The Court notes that it granted

18

Attorney Rosen one previous extension of time to file a dispositive motion, and that it specifically

19

warned her of the risk of the imposition of monetary sanctions if the February 7, 2014 deadline was

20

not met. Dkt. 25 at 2. Because Attorney Rosen did not meet the February 7, 2014 deadline, the

21

Court included in its Order dated May 13, 2014, an order to show cause why monetary sanctions

22

should not be issued and stated as follows:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants' attorney, Arlene M. Rosen, Esq., is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
why she should not be sanctioned in an amount of $150.00 for failing to meet the
February 7, 2014 deadline to file a dispositive motion, as explained above. A
hearing on this Order to Show Cause will be held on Friday, June 13, 2014 on the
Court's 9:01 a.m. Calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
California, in Courtroom 5. Attorney Rosen must file a written response to this
Order to Show Cause by Friday, May 23, 2014, if she contests it. A telephonic
appearance by Plaintiff may be permitted at the hearing if it goes forward. Once the
Court reviews the written response, it will determine whether to vacate the hearing
or proceed. Attorney Rosen must personally appear at the hearing. She must also
provide a copy of this Order and her response to her supervisor and certify the same
to the Court. Dkt. 30 at 5.

1

Attorney Rosen did not file a timely response on May 23, 2014. Instead, on May 30, 2014,

2

she filed a response stating that she had not read the May 13, 2014 Order until that day; therefore,

3

her response was late. Dkt. 32 at 2. She also apologized for the "oversights in failing to calendar

4

relevant court-ordered dates" and claimed that any resulting delay or "inconvenience [her]

5

oversights have caused" was "not intentional." Id. Plaintiff filed his response on June 9, 2014. Dkt.

6

34.

7

On June 13, 2014, the parties appeared before the undersigned Judge. The Court noted that
Attorney Rosen had not certified that a copy of the May 13, 2014 Order was provided to her

9

supervisor. Attorney Rosen informed the Court that her supervisor was given a copy of the May 13,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

2014 Order. After considering the explanations Attorney Rosen expressed in open court (as well as

11

those submitted in her May 30, 2014 response), the Court assesses a sanction of $150 to be paid to

12

Plaintiff. The Court notes that the sanction is not being assessed personally on Attorney Rosen as an

13

individual but, on her employer, the Oakland City Attorney's Office. Attorney Rosen and the

14

Oakland City Attorney's Office, i.e., Attorney Rosen's supervisors, are admonished to carefully read

15

and comply with all Orders issued in all cases before the undersigned Judge. For example, Attorney

16

Rosen was directed to submit a timely motion for summary judgment by June 16, 2014.1

17

No later than thirty (30) days of the date of this Order: (1) the $150 sanction shall be paid to

18

Plaintiff with proof of such payment to be certified to the Court; and (2) the Oakland City Attorney's

19

Office shall file a response addressing the calendaring issues that, in part, led to the delays in this

20

matter.

21

Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause in its May 13, 2014 Order is hereby discharged.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED:

June 18, 2014
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
1

27
28

Attorney Rosen has filed a timely motion for summary judgment on June 16, 2014. Dkt.
35. Attorney Rosen also informed the Court that she is aware that only remaining unserved
defendant, Officer Francis, has been served. However, she has not appeared on his behalf because
Defendant Francis has not yet contacted her office. The Court informed her that Defendant Francis
would be in default if his answer is not filed by June 20, 2014.
P:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Ray,Jr.5550.imposeSANCTIONS.wpd

2