Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05893/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05893-13/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05893-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REGARDING SANCTIONS

On August 19, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants‟ motion for 

summary judgment and referred this action to Magistrate Judge Vadas for mediation proceedings 

pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. (Although actions are referred to the Pro Se

Prisoner Mediation Program, Magistrate Judge Vadas can and often does utilize the related 

procedure of a settlement conference instead of a mediation proceeding in the action.) The order 

made very clear that the case had to proceed to mediation (or settlement, as selected by Magistrate

Judge Vadas), and ordered the parties to attend and take part in the proceedings. See Docket No. 

270 at 47. Mr. Toscano thereafter filed several motions indicating that he had no intention of 

settling or taking in part in any meaningful settlement proceedings. The Court issued another 

order, again explaining that Mr. Toscano had to attend and participate in good faith in the 

settlement conference proceedings and warning him that he could be sanctioned under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2) for failing to appear at the settlement conference, as 

well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

procedure or a court order. Docket No. 289 at 2-3. Magistrate Judge Vadas attempted to hold a 

video settlement conference on November 19, 2015. Mr. Toscano “appeared, but refused to 

participate in settlement negotiations.” Id. Magistrate Judge Vadas thus “was unable to conduct a 

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 298 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

settlement conference” and returned the case to the undersigned. Docket No. 293. 

When the Court has issued a pretrial order for the parties “to appear for one or more 

pretrial conferences for such purposes as . . . facilitating settlement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5), the 

Court “may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a 

party or its attorney: (A) fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference; (B) is 

substantially unprepared to participate -- or does not participate in good faith -- in the conference; 

or (C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). The sanctions 

authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) include: prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting his 

claims, striking pleadings, staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, and dismissing 

the action in whole or in part. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also authorizes dismissal if a 

party “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.”

It is now time to address Mr. Toscano‟s disregard of the Rules and the Court‟s orders. “A 

district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

comply with a court order: „(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.‟” 

Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); see, e.g., id. at 133 

(upholding dismissal for plaintiff‟s counsel‟s willful and groundless failure to comply with court 

order); Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (applying these factors and upholding dismissal as a discovery sanction). Before 

imposing sanctions on its own initiative or for violating pretrial orders, the district court must 

provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Ford v. Alfaro, 785 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1986); 

see also Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, 

TO PLAINTIFF, BENJAMIN TOSCANO: 

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be 

dismissed or other sanctions imposed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 

37(b)(2)(A) for your failure to attend and participate in good faith in the November 19, 2015 

settlement conference ordered by the Court.

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 298 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

For the Northern District of California

YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be 

dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the following 

orders: (1) the order to “attend the mediation proceedings and take part in them” on page 47 of the

Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendants‟ Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket 

No. 270); (2) the Order filed November 4, 2015 (Docket No. 289); and (3) the Order Setting 

Video Settlement Conference, Setting Status Conference, And Requiring Meet And Confer 

(Docket No. 279) signed by Magistrate Judge Vadas. 

YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE must be in writing and must 

be filed and served no later than January 8, 2016. The response may not exceed twenty pages 

and may present whatever relevant evidence and legal authorities you wish to present. If you 

wish to provide your own declaration to present facts, you may file only one declaration and that 

declaration must be made under penalty of perjury. You also must provide to the Court no later 

than January 8, 2016 a copy of your inmate trust account statement to that the Court may 

consider whether a monetary sanction is appropriate in addition to or instead of other sanctions.

Defendants are welcome to file a statement regarding any prejudice they suffered as a 

result of Plaintiff‟s conduct. Any such legal memorandum and declaration must be filed and 

served no later than January 8, 2016. 

Plaintiff‟s repetitious motion for immediate injunction and removal of judge from case 

(Docket No. 287) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Order at Docket No. 273.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 298 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3