Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

* This motion was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

v. ) ORDER*

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF ) 

COLUSA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, )

JON S. WRYSINSKI, individually and )

in his capacity as Director of )

County of Colusa Dept. of Public )

Works, DONALD F. STANTON, )

individually and in his capacity )

as legal counsel to County of )

Colusa, DAVID J. SHOEMAKER, )

individually and in his capacity )

as CAO/Personnel Director of )

Colusa County Dept. of Public )

Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendants under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that Defendants’

counterclaim is frivolous and brought for the sole purpose of

harassing Plaintiff.1 (Pl.’s P. & A. in Support of Mot. for R. 11

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 10/21/05 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 Although Plaintiff’s Reply states that he “submits this

reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss Counterclaim of

Defendants . . . pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6),” no such motion is pending. See Local Rule 78-230. 

2

Sanctions at 6-7.) Plaintiff contends that he has “respectfully

requested that Counter-Claimants voluntarily dismiss their

counterclaim” and that because Defendants “have failed to do so, it is

readily apparent that the [sic] reluctancy . . . is based solely on

their intent to harass and intimidate.” (Id. at 7.) 

Under Rule 11(c), sanctions are authorized subject to

certain conditions, including compliance with a “safe harbor”

provision. The “safe harbor” provision requires the party moving for

sanctions to serve the opposing party with the motion twenty-one days

prior to filing. Plaintiff alludes to a request by Plaintiff to

Defendants to dismiss their counterclaim; however, the record does not

reveal that Plaintiff has complied with the Rule 11 service

requirement. “It would wrench both the language and purpose of the

[safe harbor provision] to permit an informal warning to substitute

for service of a motion.” Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th

Cir. 1998). Since Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate compliance with

Rule 11(c), his motion for sanctions is denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2