(PC) Johnson v. Beard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL DAVID JOHNSON, No. 2:15-cv-1313 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J.A. BEARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under 18 Rules 11(c) and 37(d)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Collinsworth filed 19 an opposition. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 Sanctions Under Rule 11 21 Plaintiff contends that defendants should be sanctioned because they failed to answer the 22 third amended complaint, delayed the case, and refused to proceed to trial. (ECF No. 201 at 2.) 23 He argues that defendants have “misrepresented the issues when in fact there is a genuine issue 24 that needs to be handled by a jury trial.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that lawyers have been ordered to 25 show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments. (ECF No. 201 at 26 5.) 27 “Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of 28 ‘reasonable inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well-grounded in fact, legally 1 tenable, and not interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of Southern 2 California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. 3 Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). A motion pursuant to Rule 11 has stringent notice 4 and filing requirements. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 11 5 includes a “safe harbor” provision that the court strictly enforces. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) 6 (“The motion must be served . . . but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the 7 challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected 8 within 21 days after service. . . .”); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 677. 9 First, to the extent plaintiff seeks sanctions as to defendants Naku, Mahmoud, and Chen, 10 plaintiff’s motion fails. Defendant Naku is not represented by counsel, and on April 27, 2021 11 clerk’s default was entered based on Naku’s failure to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 136.) 12 Motions to dismiss filed by defendants Mahmoud and Chen were granted without leave to amend. 13 (ECF Nos. 106, 185.) Defendant Collinsworth’s motion to dismiss is pending. (ECF No. 207.) 14 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is construed as directed toward defendant Collinsworth. 15 Second, plaintiff’s motion must be denied because he failed to comply with the “safe 16 harbor” provision of Rule 11(b). 17 Third, plaintiff’s motion fails on the merits. Plaintiff identifies no misrepresentations 18 made by defendant Collinsworth or his counsel as required under Rule 11. Plaintiff’s conclusory 19 claim that the motion to dismiss is “frivolous” is unsupported by specific facts and therefore 20 unavailing. In addition, as argued by defendant Collinsworth, defendant’s motion to dismiss 21 relieved Collinsworth of his obligation to file an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) (serving a 22 motion to dismiss alters the deadlines for filing a responsive pleading). Thus, defendant 23 Collinsworth has not failed to defend as plaintiff contends (ECF No. 201 at 2). 24 For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is denied.1 25 //// 26 1 The court agrees that plaintiff’s case has been subject to myriad delays. However, there have 27 been multiple amendments to the complaint, multiple motions to dismiss, requests for reconsideration, and difficulties in serving defendants, all of which have contributed to such 28 delays. Review of the record reflects no intentional delay by defendants. 1 |} Sanctions Under Rule 37(d)(b) 2 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs failures to make disclosures or 3 || cooperate in discovery. Id. Rule 37(d) specifically addresses a party’s failure to attend its own 4 || deposition, serve answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection. Here, no 5 || discovery and scheduling order has issued, and no discovery has been propounded. Thus, Rule 6 | 37 does not apply. Plaintiffs motion for sanctions under Rule 37 is denied.” 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 8 | 201) is denied. 9 | Dated: November 28, 2022 10 Al i; Noreen 11 KENDALL J. Wha UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 /john1313.sanc 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 | 7... . . . Plaintiff included a list of cases addressing the issue of untimely requests for jury trial and 27 || waiving ajury demand. (ECF No. 201 at 3-4.) It is unclear how such cases apply here, but plaintiff has not waived his request for jury trial which was included in his original complaint 28 | (ECF No. 1 at 17).