Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in 

accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion for 

sanctions (ECF No. 47) came on regularly for hearing on January 15, 2020. Plaintiff appeared in 

pro per and Jill Nathan appeared on behalf of defendants. Having considered the motion, 

opposition, and reply papers, and the record in this matter, the court will deny the motion.

II. Relevant Procedural History

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff filed his complaint. He alleged, among other things, that 

upon arrival at Kaiser, officials took him “to the emergency room in a stretcher” and he was seen 

by a treating physician who gave him a wrist brace and ibuprofen. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff 

further alleges that after arriving at the jail, “Defendant Ball takes off my Wrist Brace and never 

gives it back.” (Id. at ¶ 27.)

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 5
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 17, 2018, defendants filed their motion to dismiss and offered the following 

argument supporting a legitimate reason the wrist brace could have been taken as contraband:

[P]ersonal items brought from outside the jail are contraband items 

and subject to seizure by officials. “The government has a strong 

interest in preventing contraband from entering its prisons and jails, 

and in the jail intake process, [courts] have recognized that 

‘adherence to the arrant-and-probable cause requirement would be 

impracticable.’” United States v. Fowlkes, 804 F.3d 954, 961 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (citing Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 

2009). Regardless of Plaintiff’s prior health concerns, these do not 

eliminate the government’s strong interest in controlling the 

introduction of contraband in jail for the safety and security of the 

institution. 

(ECF No. 15.) In their reply, defendants also argue that plaintiff “was provided a wrist brace by a 

physician at Kaiser prior to being transported to the jail and booked.” (ECF No. 18 at 4 

(emphasis omitted).)

On February 7, 2019, the court issued findings and recommendations on the motion to 

dismiss, which were later adopted on May 31, 2019. The court found:

Plaintiff was examined and given a wrist brace at Kaiser hospital 

prior to being taken to jail, transported to jail in a wheelchair, 

searched upon arrival at the jail, and seen by jail medical staff 

within several hours of being booked. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 26-27.) See

Cal. Penal Code § 2656(b) (if inmate’s orthopedic appliance is 

removed for security reasons, inmate “shall be examined by a 

physician within 24 hours after such removal”).

(ECF No. 20 at 9; see also ECF No. 23.)

1

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

A. Plaintiff’s Position

Plaintiff brings this motion under FRCP 11(b). Plaintiff states that “Defendants were 

served a 21-day notice on November 22nd, 2019 and change to their meritless motion to dismiss 

thus plaintiff is correct in this motion for sanctions.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.)

Plaintiff complains that defendants’ motion to dismiss did not take everything in the 

complaint as true and was “contaminated with nothing but falsehoods.” (ECF No. 47 at 2–3.)

 

1 The court notes again that it cited California Penal Code § 2656 “to illustrate that an inmate 

shall be examined within 24 hours after such removal, which is precisely what the court found 

occurred” given the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 41 at 11 n.2.)

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 5
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

According to plaintiff, defendants’ argument regarding controlling the introduction of 

contraband in the jail was wrong because he “was never examined by the physician.” (ECF No. 

47 at 3.) Plaintiff states that in addition to never having been examined by a physician, he never 

said in his complaint that his wrist brace was taken during a search. (ECF No. 47 at 3.) 

Plaintiff further states that documents produced in discovery support that there was no 

“documentation for them taking my wrist brace to prevent contraband in the jail, thus [it] was all 

a lie and this court took their word over mine[] which goes against the sources of authority.” 

(ECF No. 47 at 4–5.) 

Plaintiff concludes that, “due to the court only taking the Defendants lies and frivolous 

claims as true, I won’t be able to get to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals for at least 17 months from 

now, and the plaintiff has worked over 1000 hours on this case in the year since this case was 

filed back in 2018.” (ECF No. 47 at 5.)

Plaintiff supports his motion with discovery responses from a separate California state 

court case. (ECF No. 47 at Exs. B–C.) No request for judicial notice was included.2

Plaintiff is seeking $150,000 in sanctions. He calculates this number based on usual 

lawyer rates of $250–$500 per hour and applying what he believes is a reasonable rate of $150 

per hour. (ECF No. 47 at 2.)

B. Defendants’ Position

Defendants challenge whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Rule 11 by serving 

his request well after defendants filed their motion to dismiss. In that regard, defendants argue 

that “[p]laintiff’s alleged 21 day notice was meaningless, here, as there was nothing requested by 

Alston which could be remedied by Defendants or counsel.” (ECF No. 48 at 6.) This argument is 

based on the fact that the motion to dismiss was filed in October 2018, ruled on in May 2019, and 

plaintiff did not demand a modification until November 2019—over a year after the motion was 

filed. (See ECF Nos. 15, 23, 47.)

 

2 Even so, judicial notice of the requested documents is unnecessary for this order given the 

motion for sanctions is procedurally deficient. See Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1010 

n.12 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying request for judicial notice where judicial notice would be 

“unnecessary”).

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 5
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

Turning to the merits of the motion for sanctions, defendants argue that the court’s order 

does not rely on defendants’ argument about a jail entitled to take contraband, and that the court 

“expressly acknowledges Plaintiff’s allegations that Deputy Ball took away Alston’s wrist brace 

at the jail.” (ECF No. 48 at 5.) Further, defendants argue that “no new factual assertions were 

contained in” their motion. (Id. at 4.) 

Addressing plaintiff’s position that defendant’s argument somehow lied about whether 

plaintiff’s wrist brace was taken and under what circumstances, defendants point out that the two 

instances “are not mutually exclusive” and “[i]t can be true that jail officials can have a strong 

interest in controlling contraband items brought to the jail, while also simultaneously true that” 

plaintiff did not allege his wrist brace was taken during a search. (Id. at 5.)

Finally, defendants request an award of attorney’s fees under Rule 11(c)(2). (Id. at 7.)

IV. Legal Standard

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, sanctions may be imposed if a party or their 

attorney submits a pleading to the court which is submitted for an improper purpose, is frivolous, 

has no evidentiary support, or is not warranted by the evidence.” Washington v. Young, No. 

2:16-cv-1341 JAM DB P, 2019 WL 950252, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019). A party moving for 

Rule 11 sanctions bears the burden to show why sanctions are justified. See Tom Growney

Equip., v. Shelley Irr. Dev., Inc., 834 F.2d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 1987). “Rule 11 is an extraordinary 

remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” Operating Eng’rs Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 

859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988).

Rule 11 places “stringent notice and filing requirements on parties seeking sanctions” and 

contains a “safe harbor” provision that is strictly enforced. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 

677–78 (9th Cir. 2005). In order to comply with Rule 11’s “safe harbor” provision, Plaintiff was 

required to serve his Rule 11 motion for sanctions on the Defendants with a demand for retraction 

of the allegedly offending motion, and then to allow Defendants at least twenty-one days to 

retract the pleading before filing his Rule 11 motion with the Court. See Radcliffe v. Rainbow 

Const. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 788–89 (9th Cir. 2001). 

///

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

V. Analysis

The procedural requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(A)’s “safe harbor” provision are mandatory. 

Radcliffe, 254 F.3d at 789 (citing Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710–11 (9th Cir. 1998)). The 

purpose of this provision is to provide a type of “safe harbor” in that a party will not be subject to 

sanctions unless, within 21 days after service of the motion for sanctions, it refused to withdraw 

the offending paper and thereby escape sanctions. Barber, 146 F.3d at 710 (reversing award of 

Rule 11 sanctions where the motion for sanctions was served and filed after the challenged 

pleading had already been dismissed, thereby depriving plaintiff of the opportunity to withdraw 

the pleading and escape sanctions pursuant to the Rule’s safe harbor protection).

Here, plaintiff did not serve his motion for sanctions until well after defendants’ motion to 

dismiss was ruled upon. Thus, defendants were not given the opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s 

motion by withdrawing the challenged arguments, thereby protecting themselves totally from 

sanctions pursuant to that motion. “An award of sanctions cannot be upheld under those 

circumstances.” Barber, 146 F.3d at 710 (citations omitted); see also Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 

f.3d 671, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the Ninth Circuit enforces Rule 11’s safe harbor 

provision “strictly” (citing Radcliffe, 254 F.3d at 788–89; Barber, 46 F.3d at 710–11)).

Regarding defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under Rule 11(c)(2), in light of 

plaintiff’s pro per status, the court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees is not appropriate at this 

time.

VI. Conclusion

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and 

request for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 47) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in opposing plaintiff’s Rule 11 sanctions motion is DENIED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

15 alston2420.mfs

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 5