(DP) Contreras v. Davis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER THAT COUNSEL SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 14 RONALD DAVIS, Warden of California State IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE Prison at San Quentin, COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Respondent. Deadline to Respond: January 22, 2020 16 17 18 A review of the record in this action reveals that Petitioner Jorge Contreras through 19 counsel Brian Pomerantz and Ken Murray and Respondent Warden Ron Davis through counsel 20 Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Christina Hitomi Simpson have not complied 21 with the Court’s January 16, 2020 deadline to file a case management conference joint 22 statement. (See Doc. No. 14 at 2-3.) 23 Additionally, a review of eVoucher reveals that Petitioner through counsel Pomerantz 24 and Murray have not complied with the Court’s January 16, 2020 deadline to submit an initial 25 case budget and supporting documentation. (Id. at 3) 26 The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper 27 conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). District 1 | courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they 2 | may impose sanctions.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 6 Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent respectively neither have complied with the 7 January 16, 2020 deadline as noted above, nor contacted the Court regarding the non- 8 | compliance. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent respectively shall show cause why 11 | sanctions should not be imposed by each filing a written response to this order no later than 12 | January 22, 2020 or waive any entitlement to show cause. Upon review of counsel’s written 13 | response or upon a failure to respond, the Court may order a show cause hearing regarding 14 | imposition of sanctions. 15 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon counsel for 16 | Petitioner, Brian Pomerantz (habeas @ protonmail.com) and Ken Murray 17 | (kenmurraylaw@gmail.com), and counsel for Respondent, Kenneth Sokoler 18 | (kenneth.sokoler@doj.ca.gov) and Christina Hitomi Simpson (christina.simpson @ doj.ca.gov). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 21 | Dated: _ January 21, 2020_ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28