Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04375/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04375-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERMAN MONROE POLK,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CREAMER-TODD,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04375-YGR (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND 

SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING

FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND

The Court has reviewed the “Declaration of M. Creamer-Todd in Response to Order” (Dkt. 

97), the attached exhibits, and the apparent reliance on section 3173.1 of Title 15 of the California 

Code of Regulations to justify Defendant’s actions. The Court issues this ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE why the declarant should not be sanctioned for attempting to mislead the Court by 

referencing section 3173.1 and therein eliminating a critical phrase of the regulation by the use of 

ellipses. See Creamer-Todd Decl. ¶ 5. Section 3173.1(b) provides in full that “[f]or inmates 

convicted of [Penal Code] Section(s) . . . 288a . . . when the victim is a minor, visitation with any 

minor who is not the victim of the crime shall be limited to non-contact status except as authorized 

by the Institution Classification Committee.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3173.1(b) (emphasis 

supplied). By definition, the provision only applies “when the victim is a minor.” Id. Nothing in 

the record reflects the same. Instead, it appears that the justification for the decision was merely a 

continuation of a mistake made by previous institutions. If so, the declarant should have so said 

rather than attempt to mislead the Court.

In addition, Defendant SHALL CONFIRM for the Court that Plaintiff’s records, including 

any electronic records, have been corrected so the mistake does not persist in the future.

Case 4:14-cv-04375-YGR Document 101 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A compliance hearing regarding Defendant’s response to this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

shall be held on Friday, March 4, 2016 on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal 

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. 

Five (5) business days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, Defendant shall file: 

(1) a response to this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; and (2) confirmation that Plaintiff’s records have 

been corrected. Because this compliance calendar involves Defendant only, Plaintiff need not 

appear at the compliance hearing. Further, if compliance is complete, Defendant need not appear 

and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. If the Court is satisfied with the response, 

sanctions may not be issued. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

February 16, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-04375-YGR Document 101 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2