Jones et al v. Esquivel et al (TV2)

Filing 49

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Sanctions. There is no just reason to impose the requested monetary sanction on Defendants under the circumstances. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 9/25/2024. (DCB)Mailed to Randy Jon es 00120234, Don Carter 00273092, Robert Winters 00325157, John Boatfield 00319189 at BLEDSOE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 1045 HORSEHEAD ROAD PIKEVILLE, TN 37367, and Michael Stewart 268006 MCCX MORGAN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX Post Office Box 2000 WARTBURG, TN 37887.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
RANDY JONES, DON CARTER,
ROBERT WINTERS, and JOHN
BOATFIELD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID R. ESQUIVEL, and HOWARD
JEFFERSON ATKINS,
Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00112-TAV-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 45]. Defendants filed a response
in opposition [Doc. 46]. Plaintiffs did not file a reply, and the time for doing so has passed. See
E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1. This matter is now ripe.
Plaintiffs seek to impose a $1000 monetary sanction against Defendants on the basis that
Defendants did not properly serve Plaintiffs with a previously-filed motion for an extension of
time to respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Plaintiffs learned about Defendants’ motion
when they received a copy of the Court’s order granting it [Doc. 41]. 1 In a sworn declaration
attached to their response, Defendants explain they did attempt to serve Plaintiffs with copies of
the motion by U.S. Mail the same day the motion was filed, August 6, 2024 [see Doc. 46].
However, Defendants unintentionally failed to include the Plaintiffs’ TDOC numbers on the
envelopes. The copies and envelopes were therefore returned to sender on September 5, 2024.

1

After receiving no response from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, the
Court granted the motion as unopposed [Doc. 41].

Defendants immediately re-sent copies of the motion to Plaintiffs, this time including Plaintiffs’
TDOC numbers.
The record reflects Defendants made an unintentional blunder by failing to include the
TDOC numbers on the envelopes they mailed to Plaintiffs—a mistake they immediately corrected
upon discovering it. Plaintiffs did not file a reply to dispute that they have now received a copy
of the underlying motion. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege any prejudice related to the extension
of time Defendants received pursuant to the Court’s order granting Defendants’ underlying motion,
nor do they offer any argument as to why the motion should have been denied. Finally, Plaintiffs
evidently did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) by serving Defendants
with the Motion for Sanctions 21 days before filing it. See also Darnell v. Arthur, 782 F. App’x
413, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Rule 11(c)(2) requires that a motion for sanctions be served on
opposing counsel twenty-one days prior to filing with the court.”).
In short, there is no just reason to impose the requested monetary sanction on Defendants
under the circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion [Doc. 45] is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/Susan K. Lee
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2