Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01338/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01338-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH 

BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 30, 2020, plaintiff signed and 

presented to prison authorities for mailing, a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion accompanied his objections to the January 24, 2020 

findings and recommendations. On February 25, 2020, the district court adopted the findings and 

recommendations over plaintiff’s objections. 

Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the moving party serve 

the motion for sanctions on the offending party 21 days before filing it with the court. Accord

Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 

a movant satisfies Rule 11’s “mandatory 21 day safe-harbor period” by serving “the allegedly 

offending party with a filing-ready motion as notice that it plans to seek sanctions”). 

Case 2:19-cv-01338-WBS-KJN Document 60 Filed 03/03/20 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

The proof of service appended to plaintiff’s motion indicates that on January 30, 2020, 

plaintiff served the motion on Deputy Attorney General Lucas L. Hennes, who responded to the 

court’s orders by special appearance, the same day plaintiff mailed the motion to the court. 

Plaintiff fails to set forth any other facts demonstrating he complied with Rule 11(c). Thus, 

plaintiff failed to provide notice as required under Rule 11 and is denied on that basis.

1

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 54) is denied. 

Dated: March 3, 2020

/wilk1338.san

1

 Moreover, in light of the district court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations, 

plaintiff’s motion is now moot.

Case 2:19-cv-01338-WBS-KJN Document 60 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 2