1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD WAYNE WHATLEY, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00270-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IMPOSING TOTAL 13 v. SANCTION OF $300 UPON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., (Docs. 47 & 50) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16

17 Plaintiff Reginald Wayne Whatley is represented by counsel in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to

. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 19 conditions of confinement claims and state law negligence claims against Defendants Allison, 20 Baer, and Cisneros. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On July 21, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 39.) 23 Specifically, Defendants contend Defendant Allison should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed 24 to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Allison. (Id. at 9-11.) 25 On August 14, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Substitution of Attorney and 26 Order Directing Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Within 21 Days. (Doc. 40.) Specifically, attorney Royal 1 DL Bond was substituted in as counsel of record in place of Plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3.) Further, 2 Plaintiff was directed to respond to Defendants’ pending motion within 21 days. (Id.) 3 On September 19, 2025, when more than 21 days passed and Plaintiff failed to file either 4 an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ partial summary judgment motion 5 concerning exhaustion, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why 6 Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of 7 Non-Opposition. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff was directed to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 2.) 8 On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a written response to the OSC. (Doc. 42.) 9 On October 2, 2025, the Court issued its order discharging the OSC and granting Plaintiff 10 an extension of time within which to file an opposition. (Doc. 44.) The order expressly provided 11 that “Plaintiff SHALL file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment 12 within 14 days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a 13 showing of extraordinary good cause.” (Id. at 3, emphasis in original.) 14 On November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 46.) 15 On November 20, 2025, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause in Writing Why 16 Plaintiff’s Untimely Opposition to Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment Should 17 Not be Stricken and Why Monetary Sanctions Should Not be Imposed. (Doc. 47.) A response was 18 to the OSC was due within five days. (Id. at 3.) 19 On November 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 50.) 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff’s Response to the OSC 22 Plaintiff’s counsel explains that while she drafted and completed a timely opposition to 23 Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion, “due to internal staff turnover and a breakdown 24 in communication with a staff member,” the opposition was not timely filed. (Doc. 50 at 2.) More 25 specifically, counsel attests that on October 8, 2025, she directed a member of her staff to file the 26 completed opposition with the Court. (Id.) Counsel indicates that after October 8, 2025, despite 27 messages sent to the employee via email, text, and telephone, she received no response to her 1 instruction to file the opposition before the October 16 deadline,” she “had a reasonable, good-faith 2 belief that the filing had been completed as directed.” (Id.) On November 19, 2025, when counsel 3 subsequently discovered the opposition had not been filed prior to the deadline, she immediately 4 “caused the already-prepared opposition to be filed without further delay.” (Id. at 2, 9.) Counsel 5 attests the staff member is no longer employed with her firm and that additional procedures have 6 since been implemented to avoid a similar situation. (Id. at 2.) 7 Plaintiff’s counsel asserts Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should 8 apply and that the applicable Pioneer1 factors warrant a finding of excusable neglect. (Doc. 50 at 9 3-6.) Further, counsel contends monetary sanctions are not necessary to secure compliance with the 10 Court’s orders moving forward. (Id. at 6-7.) 11 Monetary Sanctions are Appropriate 12 Governing Authority 13 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the purpose of the rules is “to secure the 14 just, speedy and inexpensive determination of an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To effectuate this 15 purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court orders or that 16 unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) & 37(b). Relevant here, Rule 17 16(f)(1)(C) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney “fails to obey a 18 scheduling or other pretrial order.”2 19 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 20 to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all others, 22 including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority and 23 dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper,

(1980). In other words, the 24 Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose 25 sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 26 1 Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,

(1993). 27 2 The Court’s orders issued August 14, September 19, October 2, and November 20, 2025 (Docs. 40, 41, 44 & 47,

(9th Cir. 2000). The Court also may impose sanctions for civil contempt “to coerce 2 obedience to a court order.” Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1986); 3 see Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s authority to 4 impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused 5 to do.”); e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district 6 court's award of $100,000 sanction that “was coercive and not compensatory” as “an amount 7 required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling 8 Consultants,

, 1480 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's imposition of sanctions 9 to coerce compliance with court order). Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 10 California provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any 11 order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized 12 by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 13 Further, this Court’s Local Rules also state: 14 Opposition, if any to the granting of a motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days 15 after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 16 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 17 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of 18 sanctions. 19 Local Rule 230(l), emphasis added. 20 Analysis 21 This is not the first time the undersigned has admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with 22 a Court order. Specifically, on October 2, 2025, in addressing Plaintiff’s response to an earlier OSC 23 and counsel’s failure to request an extension of the relevant deadline, the Court stated, in pertinent 24 part: “Counsel for Plaintiff is admonished to exercise better care in complying with this Court’s 25 orders and Local Rules.” (Doc. 44 at 3.) Despite the admonition, coming just two weeks before the 26 relevant deadline, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ partial summary judgment was filed more 27 than 30 days late. The undersigned finds counsel’s conduct sanctionable. See, e.g., Ikerd v. Lacy, 1 is a necessary threshold to the imposition of sanctions” under Rule 16). 2 Next, the Court finds that the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel in response to the Court's 3 most recent OSC adequately responds to the Court’s directions. The Court notes, however, that 4 counsel Bond’s declaration demonstrates at least that she acted carelessly with respect to her duty 5 to comply with the Court’s orders and this district’s Local Rules. Specifically, Rule 5.3 of the 6 California Rules of Professional Conduct provides “[w]ith respect to a nonlawyer employed or 7 retained by or associated with a lawyer,” “a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the 8 nonlawyer, whether or not an employee of the same law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to 9 ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer” and 10 “shall be responsible for conduct of such a person.” See Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct 5.3(b) & (c). 11 Here, Plaintiff's counsel directed her employee to file Plaintiff’s completed opposition on October 12 8, 2025, prior to the relevant deadline. But counsel failed to properly supervise adherence by the 13 nonlawyer to her directions. This is particularly true where counsel repeatedly reached out to her 14 employee after October 8 but received no response and then, despite that lack of a response, 15 seemingly waited more than a month (and only after the Court issued its show cause order) to check 16 the docket for this action only to the learn the opposition was never filed. See Cal. Rules Prof. 17 Conduct 5.3(c) (“a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a 18 violation of these rules ... if engaged in by a lawyer if” the lawyer orders the conduct, ratifies the 19 conduct, or knows of the conduct and fails to take “reasonable remedial action”); see also Trousil 20 v. State Bar,

(1985) (upholding discipline of attorney for errors he claimed were 21 committed by his secretary when the attorney failed to show he “satisfactorily supervised his office 22 staff”). “It is certainly understandable that attorneys frequently choose to delegate [filing tasks]. 23 But it should never be forgotten that the attorney of record is ultimately responsible for [meeting 24 prescribed filing deadlines].” Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc.,

1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). In other words, staff negligence or carelessness does not constitute a 26 sufficient showing under the applicable law providing for reconsideration of a court order or relief 27 from sanctions on the grounds of purported excusable neglect. 1 | future violations and coerce compliance with this Court’s orders and its Local Rules, the Court will 2 | impose a one-time monetary sanction against Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $300.00.° 3 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. The OSC issued November 20, 2025 (Doc. 47) is DISCHARGED; and 6 2. Plaintiffs counsel SHALL pay the Clerk of the Court the sum of $300.00 in sanctions 7 within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Furter, within three (3) days of payment of 8 the sanction sin full, Plaintiff shall file proof of payment with the Court. 9 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely or fully comply with this Order may result in the 10 | imposition of further sanctions. 11 | ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 24, 2025 | Vv Vv R~ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || 3 See In re Baker,

(10th Cir. 1984) (“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged.”). 28