Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-23/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE WITHOUT IMPOSING 

SANCTIONS

(Doc. 118.)

I. BACKGROUND

Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff 

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and 

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 122 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 3
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

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 

On February 5, 2014, the court issued an order for Defendants to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to fully comply with the court’s order of 

December 9, 2013, which required Defendants to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s four motions to 

compel. (Doc. 118.) On February 6, 2014, Defendants complied with the December 9, 2013 

order by filing further opposition to Plaintiff’s motions to compel. (Doc 119.) On March 5, 

2014, Defendants filed a response to the court’s order to show cause. (Doc. 121.) 

II. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants counsel (“Counsel”) requests the court to discharge the order to show cause, 

without imposing sanctions, because her failure to fully comply with the court’s order of 

December 9, 2013 was inadvertent, and she rectified the error as soon as the mistake was

recognized. Counsel asserts that when she filed Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motions 

to compel on January 23, 2014, she believed she had fully complied with the court’s order. 

Counsel asserts that upon realizing the error, she immediately filed further opposition in full 

compliance with the order. Counsel asserts that she acted in good faith, without any intent to 

defy the Court’s Order.2

///

///

 

1 On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him 

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the 

May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff 

for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court 

based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants 

Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims 

against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were 

dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

2 Counsel also explains that she initially failed to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to compel because 

although she had prepared the oppositions, she failed to file the oppositions with the court due to inadvertence 

because of a change in office staff. Counsel asserts that she prepared an opposition to the motions that she 

believed was filed and served on October 3, 2013, but during that time Counsel’s secretary transferred to another 

division, and the opposition was apparently overlooked and was never filed or served.

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 122 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Discussion

Federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions against both attorneys and 

parties for "bad faith" conduct in litigation or for "willful disobedience" of a court order. 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 

752, 764-66 (1980). Here, the court finds no evidence of bad faith or willful disobedience by 

Counsel in failing to fully comply with the court’s order of December 9, 2013. Therefore, the 

court’s order to show cause, issued on February 5, 2014, shall be discharged without imposing 

sanctions.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s order to show cause, issued 

on February 5, 2014, is DISCHARGED without imposing sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 122 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 3