Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB (PC)

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

7-DAY DEADLINE 

On December 6, 2023, the Court issued an order finding service of Plaintiff’s complaint 

appropriate and directing e-service on Defendants. (Doc. 36.) The Court directed the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), within 40 days, to file a “‘CDCR Notice 

of E-Service Waiver,’ advising if the defendants waive service of process without need for 

personal service by the United States Marshal.” Id. at 2-3. The Court also directed CDCR to file 

a waiver of service within 30 days thereafter for all Defendants who waive service. Id. at 3.

On January 10, 2024, CDCR timely filed the required Notice of E-Service Waiver on 

behalf of all six Defendants named in this action. (Doc. 40.) Thereafter, counsel for Defendants 

filed a “Waiver of Service of Summons” for only five of the six Defendants (e.g., not including 

Defendant Robert Mitchell). (Doc. 41.) Notwithstanding that more than 30 days passed after the 

filing of the Notice of E-Service Waiver, Defendant Mitchell did not timely file a waiver of 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 46 Filed 03/13/24 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

service or make any other filing.

Accordingly, on February 12, 2024, the Court ordered CDCR to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed for Defendant Mitchell’s failure to comply with the Court’s 

order. (Doc. 42.) CDCR timely responded to the show cause order and acknowledged its 

intention to include Defendant Mitchell among the Defendants who waived service but 

inadvertently omitted his name due to “a clerical error.” (Doc. 43.) CDCR concurrently filed a 

waiver of service for Defendant Mitchell, extending until March 11, 2024, his time to respond to 

the complaint. (Doc. 44.)

On March 11, 2024, five of the six Defendants (excepting Defendant Mitchell) filed an 

answer to the complaint. (Doc. 45 at p. 1) (stating: “In answer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Defendants Neumann, Taylor, Chaiken, Buzzini, 

and Macomber hereby admit, deny, and allege as follows.”). Neither that answer nor counsel for 

Defendants’ earlier filings (Docs. 43, 44) suggest any reason why Defendant Mitchell would not 

have joined in that responsive pleading. Indeed, that the answer purports to make admissions on 

behalf of Defendant Mitchell (see Doc. 45 at ¶¶ 4, 19) indicates to the Court that Defendant 

Mitchell’s exclusion from the answer may be due to another “clerical error”; however, as the 

deadline for Defendant Mitchell’s response to the complaint has passed, the Court will not 

speculate.

Accordingly, within seven (7) days of entry of this Order, counsel for Defendants shall 

show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for Defendant Mitchell’s failure to 

timely respond to the complaint. In the alternative, counsel for Defendants may comply with this 

Order by filing an amended answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 46 Filed 03/13/24 Page 2 of 2