Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00695-3/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

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODFORD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 695 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CONTEMPT ORDER (Doc. 12.) 

 Anthony R. Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 8, 2005, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee

or submit a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis along with the required

certified attachments. The Court received an Application along with attachments on July 18,

2005. However, on August 16, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an Order finding Defendants in

Contempt. Plaintiff states that Defendants have deprived him of Due Process because they failed

to notify him whether or not they sent the documents to the Court. 

Civil contempt is appropriate when a party fails to comply with a court order that is both

specific and definite. Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 (9th Cir. 1984). Failure to comply

consists of not taking all the reasonable steps within one's power to insure compliance with the

order. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989). A court must

find civil contempt based on clear and convincing evidence. Id. Substantial compliance with a

Case 1:05-cv-00695-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 08/22/05 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

court order is a defense to an action for civil contempt. Id. However, intent is irrelevant to a

finding of civil contempt and, therefore, good faith is not a defense. Stone v. City and County of

San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). Punishment for civil contempt is intended to

be either coercive or compensatory. U.S. v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In this case, the prison trust office is not a party to this case and the Order issued by the

Court was not directed at the prison or any of the named Defendants, it was directed at Plaintiff. 

In addition, the failure to notify Plaintiff as to whether or not the documents were sent to the

Court does not rise to the level of a violation that can be remedied by this Court. Plaintiff

himself states that he submitted the documents for certification along with a pre-addressed

stamped envelope to be sent directly to the Court. This explains why he did not receive the

certified copy back from the prison trust office. In any event, Plaintiff does not make the

requisite showing to cause this Court to issue an Order of Contempt. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00695-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2