(PC) Garces v. Gamboa ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ADVENTIST 13 HEALTH BAKERSFIELD SHOULD NOT BE 14 v. HELD IN CIVIL CONT EMPT 15 M. GAMBOA, et al., (ECF No. 274) 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se 20 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims 21 for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hernandez, 22 Hubbard, Huerta, Cathey, Wolf, and Allison; Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to a 23 serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hernandez, 24 Hubbard, Gill, Ibarra, Camacho, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd; and Plaintiff’s claims for 25 procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Gamboa, 26 Babb, and Sanders. (ECF No. 18 at 28; ECF No. 21 at 3; ECF No. 79 at 11; ECF No. 80). 27 On March 14, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to issue a third-party subpoena 28 directed to Adventist Health Bakersfield, and authorized service of the subpoena by the United States Marshals Service. (ECF Nos. 229, 246). On May 3, 2024, the proof of service indicated 1 that Adventist Health Bakersfield did not respond to the subpoena based on a misunderstanding 2 that the subpoena was directed to an individual physician rather than the hospital itself. (ECF No. 3 252). Accordingly, the Court issued a further order on May 14, 2024, requiring Adventist Health 4 Bakersfield to respond to the subpoena by May 20, 2024, and clarifying that the subpoena was 5 directed to the hospital. (ECF No. 259).1 The order further granted Plaintiff permission to file a 6 motion to compel after June 2, 2024. (Id. at 3). 7 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Adventist Health Bakersfield’s response on June 10, 8 2024, which also requests an order directing that Adventist Health Bakersfield pay the costs of 9 service of the subpoena as sanctions. (ECF No. 273). On June 13, 2024, the Court issued an order 10 requiring that Adventist Health Bakersfield respond to Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request 11 for sanctions within 21 days. (ECF No. 274). Adventist Health was advised that failure to follow 12 the Court’s order could result in contempt. (Id. at 3). As of this date, Adventist Health has not 13 responded to the Court’s order. 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), the Court “may hold in contempt a person 15 who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related 16 to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 17 There are two types of contempt charges: 18 A contempt charge against a nonparty may be either of a criminal or a civil nature. See Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th 19 Cir.1983). Criminal contempt is deemed punitive as it is designed to punish the affront to the court. See Gompers v. Bucks, 221 U.S. 418, 441 (1911). It may 20 include fines payable to the court and it also may include jail time. 21 Civil contempt, on the other hand, is meant to compel obedience with a court order, or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for the injuries resulting from 22 the non-compliance. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 702 F.2d at 778. The district court 23 has wide latitude in deciding whether there has been contemptuous defiance of one of its orders. Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir.1992). A 24 civil contempt order must include a “purge” condition which provides the contemnor with an opportunity to comply with the order before payment of the 25 fine or other sanction becomes due. De Parcq v. U.S. District Court for the S. Dist. 26 of Iowa, 235 F.2d 692, 699 (9th Cir.1956) (“[C]ivil contempt is conditional in nature and can be terminated if the contemnor purges himself of the contempt.”). 27 In imposing civil contempt sanctions, the court must impose the most minimal 28 1 The Court directed that the order be mailed to Christina Maese, Director of Physician Services, at Adventist Health Bakersfield. Director Maese’s information was attached to the proof of service. (ECF No. 252). sanction necessary to coerce the contemnor to comply with the order. Whittaker | Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir.1992). Where the objective of 2 the contempt order is to ensure the contemnor’s compliance, the court must “consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued 3 contumacy, and the probably effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the desired result.” Bademyan v. Receivable Mgmt. Servs. Corp., No. CV— 4 08—00519, 2009 WL 605789, at *3 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 9, 2009). 5 | Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2015 WL 5732805, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 6 | 2015). 7 To establish civil contempt, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and 8 convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The 2 | burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply. They must 10 | show they took every reasonable step to comply.” Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 n. 9 (internal citations 11 | omitted). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that. 13 1. Adventist Health Bakersfield shall show cause as to why it should not be held in civil 14 contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s order, by filing a response to this 15 order on the record within 14 days of this order. 16 2. Failure to comply with this order to show cause may subject Adventist Health 17 Bakersfield to contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order to Adventist 19 Health Bakersfield as follows: 20 a. Christina Maese, Director Physician Services, 2615 Chester Avenue, P.O. Box 21 2615, Bakersfield, CA 93303. 22 b. Adventist Health Bakersfield, ATTN: Legal Department, 2615 Chester 23 Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 20, 2024 [sf heey 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28