Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ARON ROTMAN,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00001 DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

TEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 31, 2009.1

On May 10, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave 

to amend for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim against any Defendant. Plaintiff 

appealed the dismissal.

On May 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed 

in part. The Ninth Circuit concluded that as to Defendant Rotman, Plaintiff stated a claim under 

the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

 Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order, this Court ordered service on Defendant Rotman on 

August 15, 2012. After more than two years of unsuccessful attempts at service, Defendant 

Rotman was personally served on September 16, 2014.

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 3, 2010. Defendant Rotman 

filed his consent on October 20, 2014.

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 59 Filed 10/29/14 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

On October 7, 2014, Defendant Rotman filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief 

could be granted and requested that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice. The Court 

recently denied the motion.

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant Rotman for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 

While acknowledging that binding decision in passing, Defendant Rotman sought dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.

Defendant’s counsel, as an officer of the court, has a duty of good faith and candor to the 

Court, and sanctions may be imposed for filing frivolous motions which serve only to 

unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 

210 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days from the date of service 

of this order, Defendant SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for needlessly 

multiplying the proceedings in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 59 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2