(PC) Beckett v. Scalia

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED SCALIA, et al., FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 44, 46) ORDER GRANTING REQUEST NUNC 17 PRO TUNC FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 45) 20 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 On January 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 40.)

24 Specifically, service was to be effected on Defendants B. Hackworth, Hernandez, L. Hurtado, A.

25 Madrigal and J. Scalia. (Id. at 2.) Relevant here, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was directed to file the “CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver” form within 40 days, advising whether Defendants agreed to waive service of process without the need for personal service. (Id. at 3.)

1 When more than 40 days passed without a response, on March 6, 2024, the Court issued an order directing CDCR to show cause in writing, within five days, why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with a court order, or, alternatively, to file a completed waiver form. (Doc. 44 [minute order].)

5 On March 7, 2024, the CDCR filed a request for a 14-day extension of time within which to file the Notice of E-Service Waiver form, noting authorization was pending as to Defendants Hackworth, Hernandez, Hurtado, Madrigal and Scalia. (Doc. 45.)

8 On March 8, 2024, the Court issued its Further Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Obey Court Orders. (Doc. 46.)

10 On March 11, 2024, a Notice of Intent to Waive Service was filed as to Defendants Hackworth, Hernandez, Madrigal and Scalia. (Doc. 47.) Additionally, a Notice of Intent Not to Waive Service was filed as to Defendant Hurtado. (Doc. 48.) That same date, counsel for CDCR filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 49.)

14 II. DISCUSSION 15 CDCR states it received the Court’s order regarding service on January 22, 2024, and contacted California State Prison-Corcoran the following day to confirm the named Defendants still worked there and whether CDCR was authorized to waive service on their behalf. (Doc. 49 at 2.) While it is the CDCR’s practice to calendar the deadline to file a CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver form and a reminder five days prior to the deadline, as a result of inadvertence, neither was calendared. (Id.) When CDCR received an order to show cause on March 6, 2024, it again contacted the institution concerning confirmation of its authority to waive service of process. (Id.) CDCR states it filed a request for a 14-day extension of time on March 7, 2024, in a good faith effort to comply with the E-Service Pilot Program for Civil Rights Cases, believing it would then have sufficient information to file the CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver form. (Id. at 2-3.) That same date, CDCR received confirmation from the institution that three of the five Defendants would waive service, one could not be identified, and another is now employed at the Office of Internal Affairs. (Id. at 3.) It advises that confirmation concerning the latter Defendant’s waiver of service of process was received on March 11, 2024. (Id.) Accordingly, on March 11, 2024, CDCR filed the CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver forms. (Id.) 3 CDCR contends that sanctions are unwarranted given that its failure to comply with a court order “was the result of an inadvertent calendaring mistake rather than bad faith” and given that it promptly filed the waiver forms. (Id.) CDCR further notes that this Court’s inherent power to sanction purportedly extends only to compensatory sanctions and that there is no indication Plaintiff has incurred any expenses as a result of the delay concerning service. (Id.) 8 Counsel’s assertion regarding the domain of a district court to impose sanctions is an overgeneralization. “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous behavior, or both.” Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Consistent with this, the Court of Appeals long has affirmed the district court’s discretion to impose sanctions intended to coerce a noncompliant party into compliance with court orders. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court’s award of $100,000 sanction that “was coercive and not compensatory” as “an amount required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished). Accord Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1480 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court’s imposition of daily sanctions to coerce compliance with court order). Here, however, given CDCR’s prompt response to the Court’s show cause orders, the Court perceives CDCR recognizes the importance of timely complying with all court orders and concludes no coercive sanction is necessary.

22 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 23 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The Court’s show cause orders issued March 6 and March 8, 2024 (Docs. 44, 46) are 25 DISCHARGED; and ] 2. CDCR’s request for an extension of time within which to file notices of intent to either 2 waive or not waive service (Doc. 45), is GRANTED.

3 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. | Dated: _March 12, 2024 | hr Rr 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE