Elmer v. Hinkley

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN ELMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00871-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 12 $100.00 SANCTION v. 13 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHITWOOD, et al., SANCTIONS OF $50 PER DAY 14 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 35, 36) 15 16 I. 17 BACKGROUND 18 On July 31, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of settlement, informing the Court that a 19 settlement had been reached in the case. (ECF No. 34.) On August 1, 2025, the Court issued an 20 order setting the deadline to file dispositional documents by August 22, 2025 in accordance with 21 Local Rule 160(b) (“Upon such notification of disposition or resolution of an action or motion, 22 the Court shall fix a date upon which the documents disposing of the action or motion must be 23 filed, which date shall not be more than twenty-one (21) days from the date of said notification, 24 absent good cause.”). (ECF No. 81.) As of August 25, 2025, dispositional documents had not 25 been filed. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause within three days why 26 monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the Court’s order to file 27 dispositional documents. (ECF No. 36.) No response to the Court’s order to show cause was filed. 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the underlying purpose of the rules is 4 to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To 5 effectuate this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with 6 court orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 37(b). Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney 8 fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. 9 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 10 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 11 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of 12 all others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the 13 authority and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In 14 order to coerce a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue sanctions for 15 every day the party fails to respond to the Court’s orders to show cause. See Lasar v. Ford 16 Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s authority to impose civil 17 sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the [party] to do what he had refused to do.”). 18 Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of 19 counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds 20 for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 21 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject 22 to these Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or 23 Magistrate Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. 24 P. 42, or may, after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any 25 other appropriate disciplinary action against the attorney.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 184(a). “In addition to 26 or in lieu of the foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary 27 body of any Court before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” Id. 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders in this action, most 4 recently, the Court’s August 25, 2025 order to show cause for failing to file dispositional 5 documents by August 22, 2025, pursuant to the Court’s August 1, 2025 order. (ECF No. 36.) 6 The Court has already issued an order to show cause in this action and Plaintiff has been 7 sanctioned for failure to respond. (ECF No. 9.) In a November 25, 2024 order imposing 8 sanctions, the Court admonished Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order “is 9 unacceptable and not well-taken. Going forward, the Court admonishes Plaintiff that he must 10 comply with all future court orders.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff, however, has continued to disregard 11 orders by the Court. On August 1, 2025, the Court ordered dispositional documents be filed 12 (ECF No. 25) and the Court issued an order to show cause for failure to comply with that order 13 on August 25, 2025 (ECF No. 35). Given Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with Court 14 orders despite prior admonishment, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a sanction of 15 $100.00. 16 A daily sanction shall also be imposed to compel Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s 17 order that dispositional documents be filed. Plaintiff shall pay a sanction of $50.00 for each day 18 that he fails to file dispositional documents or other response to the August 1, 2025 order. A 19 $50.00 sanction shall be jointly and severally imposed on Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff 20 beginning at 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2025, and shall continue to be imposed each day 21 thereafter until dispositional documents or another filing addressing the Court’s August 1, 2025 22 order are filed. Any other filing must include an explanation for Plaintiff’s most recent failure to 23 comply with this Court’s order and any requests made therein must be supported by good cause. 24 The daily deadline for sanctions shall expire at the close of business each day, 5:00 p.m. (PST). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IV. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. No later than September 9, 2025, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall jointly and 5 severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court $100 via cashier’s check for 6 failure to comply with the Court’s August 1, 2025 and August 25, 2025 orders. 7 Failure to pay this sanction will result in the imposition of additional daily sanctions 8 in the amount of $50 per day; and 9 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk 10 of the Court $50.00 per day via cashier’s check beginning at 5:00 p.m. on 11 September 2, 2025, until dispositional documents or another filing addressing the 12 Court’s August 1, 2025 order are filed. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 15 | Dated: _ September 2, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28