Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468-11/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

MATTHEW H. BECKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDERS TO 

SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDERS

(Docs. 44, 46)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST NUNC 

PRO TUNC FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 45)

Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 40.) 

Specifically, service was to be effected on Defendants B. Hackworth, Hernandez, L. Hurtado, A. 

Madrigal and J. Scalia. (Id. at 2.) Relevant here, the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was directed to file the “CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver” form 

within 40 days, advising whether Defendants agreed to waive service of process without the need 

for personal service. (Id. at 3.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 50 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 4
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

When more than 40 days passed without a response, on March 6, 2024, the Court issued 

an order directing CDCR to show cause in writing, within five days, why sanctions should not be 

imposed for failing to comply with a court order, or, alternatively, to file a completed waiver 

form. (Doc. 44 [minute order].) 

On March 7, 2024, the CDCR filed a request for a 14-day extension of time within which 

to file the Notice of E-Service Waiver form, noting authorization was pending as to Defendants 

Hackworth, Hernandez, Hurtado, Madrigal and Scalia. (Doc. 45.) 

On March 8, 2024, the Court issued its Further Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why 

Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Obey Court Orders. (Doc. 46.) 

On March 11, 2024, a Notice of Intent to Waive Service was filed as to Defendants 

Hackworth, Hernandez, Madrigal and Scalia. (Doc. 47.) Additionally, a Notice of Intent Not to 

Waive Service was filed as to Defendant Hurtado. (Doc. 48.) That same date, counsel for CDCR 

filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 49.) 

II. DISCUSSION

CDCR states it received the Court’s order regarding service on January 22, 2024, and 

contacted California State Prison-Corcoran the following day to confirm the named Defendants 

still worked there and whether CDCR was authorized to waive service on their behalf. (Doc. 49 at 

2.) While it is the CDCR’s practice to calendar the deadline to file a CDCR Notice of E-Service 

Waiver form and a reminder five days prior to the deadline, as a result of inadvertence, neither 

was calendared. (Id.) When CDCR received an order to show cause on March 6, 2024, it again 

contacted the institution concerning confirmation of its authority to waive service of process. (Id.) 

CDCR states it filed a request for a 14-day extension of time on March 7, 2024, in a good faith 

effort to comply with the E-Service Pilot Program for Civil Rights Cases, believing it would then 

have sufficient information to file the CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver form. (Id. at 2-3.) That 

same date, CDCR received confirmation from the institution that three of the five Defendants

would waive service, one could not be identified, and another is now employed at the Office of 

Internal Affairs. (Id. at 3.) It advises that confirmation concerning the latter Defendant’s waiver of 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 50 Filed 03/12/24 Page 2 of 4
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

service of process was received on March 11, 2024. (Id.) Accordingly, on March 11, 2024, CDCR 

filed the CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver forms. (Id.) 

CDCR contends that sanctions are unwarranted given that its failure to comply with a 

court order “was the result of an inadvertent calendaring mistake rather than bad faith” and given 

that it promptly filed the waiver forms. (Id.) CDCR further notes that this Court’s inherent 

power to sanction purportedly extends only to compensatory sanctions and that there is no 

indication Plaintiff has incurred any expenses as a result of the delay concerning service. (Id.)

Counsel’s assertion regarding the domain of a district court to impose sanctions is an

overgeneralization. “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court 

order, or to compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the 

contemptuous behavior, or both.” Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Consistent with this, the Court of Appeals long has affirmed the 

district court’s discretion to impose sanctions intended to coerce a noncompliant party into 

compliance with court orders. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (affirming district court’s award of $100,000 sanction that “was coercive and not 

compensatory” as “an amount required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished). Accord 

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1480 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming 

district court’s imposition of daily sanctions to coerce compliance with court order). Here, 

however, given CDCR’s prompt response to the Court’s show cause orders, the Court perceives 

CDCR recognizes the importance of timely complying with all court orders and concludes no 

coercive sanction is necessary.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s show cause orders issued March 6 and March 8, 2024 (Docs. 44, 46) are

DISCHARGED; and

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 50 Filed 03/12/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. CDCR’s request for an extension of time within which to file notices of intent to either 

waive or not waive service (Doc. 45), is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 50 Filed 03/12/24 Page 4 of 4