Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO THE LIMITED EXTENT SET FORTH 

HEREIN AND DIRECTING CARTER C. 

WHITE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDER

(Doc. No. 199)

On April 24, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel Carter C. White’s 

motion to withdraw as attorney of record. (Doc. No. 164). On July 9, 2024, the District Court 

denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the April 24, 2024 Order. (Doc. No. 170). On 

August 26, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff’s former pro bono counsel to “mail a copy of 

Plaintiff’s case file and any other materials related to this case to Plaintiff’s address of record.”

(Doc. No. 177 at 2 ¶ 1). 

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice seeking a court order directing “attorney 

Carter C. White to turn over all the information and notes including the resolvement [sic] of the 

discovery dispute of March 8, 2023 . . .” (Doc. No. 189 at 1). On December 13, 2024, the Court 

directed Mr. White (1) “to mail a copy of any remaining materials not previously provided and 

related to Plaintiff’s case” to Plaintiff and (2) to file a Notice of Compliance with the August 26, 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 208 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 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

2

2024 Order and December 13, 2024 Order no later than December 20, 2024. (Doc. No. 195 at 2). 

Four days before the December 20, 2024 deadline, Plaintiff filed a subsequent Notice

requesting the Court “order Attorney White to turn over the movant’s entire file including workproduct notes.” (Doc. No. 199). Representing that he did not receive any documents concerning 

“the resolvement [sic] of the discovery dispute involving the destruction of the video recording of 

the October 13, 2014 incident,” Plaintiff requests Mr. White be ordered to “explain what 

happened to the documents that were part of the discovery dispute.” (Id.). To date, Mr. White 

has not responded to the Court’s December 13, 2024 Order or filed the required Notice of 

Compliance. 

“The inherent powers of federal courts are those that are necessary to the exercise of all 

others.” Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 

1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “There can be no question that courts have inherent 

power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v. 

United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). “A court has power to adjudge in civil contempt any 

person who willfully disobeys a specific and definite order requiring him to do or to refrain from 

doing an act.” Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 1983). Local Rule 110 

provides that “[f]ailure of counsel ... to comply ... with any order of the Court may be grounds 

for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Here, the Court ordered Mr. White1to provide all documents to Plaintiff and file a Notice 

of Compliance no later than December 20, 2024. (Doc. No. 195). White failed to comply with or 

in any way respond to the Court’s Order by the deadline. Additionally, White failed to respond to 

Plaintiff’s assertions that White did not provide the entire file to him. White’s failure to respond 

in any way hinders the Court’s ability to move forward with proceedings in this matter. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED (Doc. No. 199) to the limited extent that Plaintiff’s 

former pro bono counsel, Carter C. White, is directed to mail a copy of any remaining 

1 While Mr. White is not currently Plaintiff’s counsel, “[t]he power of a court over members of its bar is at 

least as great as its authority over litigants.” Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980). 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 208 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 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

3

materials not previously provided and related to Plaintiff’s case to his address of 

record:

Shannon Williams

13947-047 

MCCREARY 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

P.O. BOX 3000 

PINE KNOT, KY 42635

2. To the extent the file does not contain any documents related to the discovery dispute 

concerning the alleged destruction of video, Mr. White is directed to explain the lack 

of documents in a letter to Plaintiff. 

3. No later than January 7, 2024, Mr. White shall file a Notice of Compliance with the 

August 26, 2024 Order and the Court’s December 13, 2024 Order, certifying that all 

case materials have been provided to Plaintiff.

4. No later than January 14, 2024, Mr. White SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN 

WRITING why sanctions should not issue for his failure to comply with the Court’s 

December 13, 2024 Order.

5. Because Plaintiff’s former counsel has been terminated from this action, the Clerk of 

Court is directed to email former counsel at ccwhite@ucdavis.edu as well as mail a

copy of this order and Plaintiff’s December 16, 2024 Notice/Motion (Doc. No. 198) 

to counsel’s address of record:

Carter Capps White 

King Hall Civil Rights Clinic 

UC Davis School of Law 

One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB 30 

Davis, CA 95616

Dated: December 30, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 208 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 3