(PC) Smith v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATIONS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. ECF No. 90. For 20 the reasons set forth below, the motion for sanctions is denied. 21 I. Procedural History 22 This case was set for a pretrial settlement conference, which was originally set before the 23 undersigned for September 28, 2023. ECF No. 74. The court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad 24 testificandum ordering that plaintiff’s custodian produce him on that date. ECF No. 75. On 25 September 25, 2023, the court, on its own motion, rescheduled the settlement conference for 26 January 30, 2024. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff filed a motion to opt out of the settlement conference, 27 ECF No. 78, which the court construed as a motion to expedite, and for another magistrate judge 28 to conduct, the settlement conference, ECF No. 80. The court granted plaintiff’s motion and 1 rescheduled the settlement conference for November 28, 2023, before Chief Magistrate Judge 2 Carolyn K. Delaney. Id. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was issued ordering that 3 plaintiff be produced for the settlement conference. ECF No. 81. The day before the settlement 4 conference was to take place, defendants filed a motion to reschedule the conference because 5 plaintiff was moved to the administrative segregation unit and the video conference equipment 6 there was not available on the date of the settlement conference. ECF No. 83-1 at 1. Finding 7 good cause, the court granted defendants’ motion and rescheduled the settlement conference for 8 January 9, 2024. ECF No. 84. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was issued ordering that 9 plaintiff be produced for the settlement conference on January 9, 2024. ECF No. 85. Plaintiff 10 filed the instant motion for sanctions, ECF No. 90, and defendants opposed the motion, ECF No. 11 96. A settlement conference occurred on January 9, 2024, and the case did not settle. ECF No. 12 97. 13 II. Motion for Sanctions 14 Plaintiff seeks sanctions against defendants and the Department of Corrections in the 15 amount of $1,500.00 because “this most recent writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is the 16 court’s third” and “Defendants and Warden of RJ Donovan [Correctional Facility]” failed to 17 comply with the two prior writs ordering the custodian to produce plaintiff, and for “wasting 18 Plaintiff’s time in the preparation” for the January 9, 2024 settlement conference. ECF No. 90 at 19 1-2 (formatting omitted). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against defendants and the warden of RJ 20 Donovan in the amount of $500.00 for failing to produce plaintiff, and “wasting Plaintiff’s time in 21 preparing,” for the “second” settlement conference that was scheduled for November 28, 2023. 22 Id. at 2. Further, plaintiff requested that the court order plaintiff to remain at RJ Donovan until 23 after the January 9, 2024 settlement conference. Id. at 4. 24 Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that one of the writs was issued for a settlement 25 conference that was rescheduled on the court’s own initiative, and the other writ was issued for a 26 settlement conference that had to be rescheduled because plaintiff was moved to administrative 27 segregation and the video-conference equipment there was unavailable for the day of the 28 //// 1 settlement conference.1 ECF No. 96 at 2. Defendants argue that these are not grounds for 2 sanctions. Id. Defendants also state that they are not employed at RJ Donovan and the writs of 3 habeas corpus ad testificandum were directed at plaintiff’s custodian, not the defendants. Id. at 3. 4 III. Legal Standard 5 Federal courts possess broad powers to impose sanctions against parties or counsel for 6 improper conduct during litigation. The Local Rules of the Eastern District provide wide latitude 7 to the court with regard to sanctions—under Local Rule 110, the failure of a party to comply with 8 any local rule or order of the court may result in the imposition of “any and all sanctions 9 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Additionally, the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate sanctions under rule 16 for “fail[ure] to obey a 11 scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C). “On motion or on its own, the 12 court may issue any just orders . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). 13 Courts also have the “inherent power to levy sanctions, including attorneys’ fees, for 14 ‘willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, 15 vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 16 2001) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)). Under the court’s 17 inherent power, sanctions are only available “if the court specifically finds bad faith or conduct 18 tantamount to bad faith.” Id. at 994. 19 IV. Analysis 20 Plaintiff requests sanctions against defendants and the warden at RJ Donovan for failing to 21 produce plaintiff for two settlement conferences as ordered in the writs of habeas corpus ad 22 testificandum. However, the September 28, 2023 settlement conference was rescheduled to 23 January 30, 2024 by the court, and not by defendants. ECF No. 77. Further, the November 28, 24 2023 settlement conference was rescheduled upon motion by defendants and a finding of good 25 cause by the court. ECF No. 84. There is no evidence of bad faith by defendant or that they 26 failed to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fink, 239 F.2d at 991. Moreover, 27 1 Defendants assert that inmates in administrative segregation are required to use the video- 28 conference equipment in that unit for security purposes. ECF No. 96 at 2. 1 | as defendants noted, they did not have control over whether plaintiff was produced for the 2 || settlement conference, as the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum were directed to □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 || custodian, not to defendants. See ECF Nos. 75, 81. The difficulties in scheduling the settlement 4 || conference, and repeated rescheduling, were doubtlessly inconvenient for all parties. They were 5 | not, however, defendants’ fault. Therefore, the motion for sanctions will be denied. 6 Plaintiff also requests that the court order him to remain at RJ Donovan until the 7 || settlement conference occurs. ECF No. 90 at 4. Since the settlement conference occurred on 8 | January 9, 2024, this request is now moot. 9 CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions, ECF No. 11 | 90, is DENIED. 12 | DATED: June 14, 2024 ~ 13 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28