(PC) Wilkins v. Barber ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P BROWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 30, 2020, plaintiff signed and 19 presented to prison authorities for mailing, a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion accompanied his objections to the January 24, 2020 21 findings and recommendations. On February 25, 2020, the district court adopted the findings and 22 recommendations over plaintiff’s objections. 23 Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the moving party serve 24 the motion for sanctions on the offending party 21 days before filing it with the court. Accord 25 Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 26 a movant satisfies Rule 11’s “mandatory 21 day safe-harbor period” by serving “the allegedly 27 offending party with a filing-ready motion as notice that it plans to seek sanctions”). 28 1 The proof of service appended to plaintiff's motion indicates that on January 30, 2020, 2 | plaintiff served the motion on Deputy Attorney General Lucas L. Hennes, who responded to the 3 | court’s orders by special appearance, the same day plaintiff mailed the motion to the court. 4 | Plaintiff fails to set forth any other facts demonstrating he complied with Rule 11(c). Thus, 5 | plaintiff failed to provide notice as required under Rule 11 and is denied on that basis.! 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 54) is denied. 7 | Dated: March 3, 2020 8 Al i; Noreen 9 KENDALL J. Wan UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 /wilk1338.san 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ——_—_ ' Moreover, in light of the district court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations, 28 | plaintiffs motion is now moot.