Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02535/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02535-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Order filed April 27, 2005, required the party

timely filing a status report to “include a declaration

explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

other party or parties.” (April 27 Order at 2, n.2.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE L. HODGES, )

) CIV. S-04-2535 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SHASTA; CITY OF REDDING; ) CONFERENCE

LARRY F. MOTY Chief of Polica; ) 

JIM POPE, Shasta County Sheriff; )

DEPUTY PAT LANHAM; OFFICER ZUFALL; )

OFFICER FREDRICK; OFFICER BEEMAN; )

CORPORAL BULLINGTON; OFFICER )

MAGLEBY; OFFICER ZALES; OFFICER )

ZALESNY; OFFICER WILKES; OFFICER )

SCHULTZ; OFFICER MORAVEC; OFFICER )

FREDRICK; OFFICER OSTROWSKI; )

Doe Officers 1-15, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The unilateral Pretrial Status Report filed May 23, 2005,

contains a section which is unclear about service of process and does

not explain why none of the defendants participated in the preparation

and filing of a status report.1

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than 4:00

p.m. on June 27, 2005, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

counsel and/or Plaintiff for the failure to include this ordered

declaration. The written response shall state whether Plaintiff or

counsel is at fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.2

If a hearing is requested, it will be held on July 11, 2005, at 9:00

a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to

that date. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the

November 30, 2004, and June 27, 2005, Orders, the parties are to file

a joint status report no later than June 27, 2005. Further, Plaintiff

is required to explain why and when Plaintiff plans to prosecute the

action against any Defendant whom Plaintiff contends has been served

but has not responded to service.

Dated: May 31, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2