Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MCCLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 101)

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was initiated in March 2010, and 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Lozano, Wood, and 

Perkins, all of whom have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 23, 71, & 73.) 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 15, 2015 motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 101.) 

Defendants filed an opposition on July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff did not file a 

reply.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move for 

sanctions when the opposing party has filed, inter alia, a frivolous motion. See Fed R. 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 122 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Civ. P. 11(b)(2), (c)(2). Before filing a motion for sanctions with the court, however, the 

party must first serve it on the opposing party and allow the opposing party a “safe 

harbor” of 21 days in which to withdraw or correct the challenged filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11(c)(2); see also, e.g., Retail Flooring Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Beaulieu of Am., LLC, 339 

F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003). The safe harbor provision is mandatory. Truesdell v. S. 

Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2002); Radcliffe v. Rainbow, 

254 F.3d 772, 789 (9th Cir. 2001). A party that fails to comply with the safe harbor 

provision, e.g., by filing a motion for sanctions fewer than 21 days after serving it on the 

opposing party, is not entitled to sanctions. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 678-679 

(9th Cir. 2005); Radcliffe, 254 F.3d at 789.

II. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 on the ground that 

Defendants’ motion to revoke his in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 83) was “baseless 

and frivolous.” 

Plaintiff did not comply with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11. The certificate 

of service accompanying his motion for sanctions is dated July 12, 2015. (ECF No. 101, 

at 7.) The motion was filed on July 15, 2015. (ECF No. 101, at 1.) Plaintiff did not give 

Defendants 21 days to correct or withdraw their filings. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled 

to sanctions, see, e.g. Holgate, 425 F.3d at 679, and the Court will deny his motion.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 15, 2015 

motion for sanctions (ECF No. 101) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 122 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 122 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3