Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01523/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01523-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE CONTRERAS, 

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER THAT COUNSEL SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE 

COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER

Deadline to Respond: January 22, 2020

A review of the record in this action reveals that Petitioner Jorge Contreras through 

counsel Brian Pomerantz and Ken Murray and Respondent Warden Ron Davis through counsel 

Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Christina Hitomi Simpson have not complied 

with the Court’s January 16, 2020 deadline to file a case management conference joint 

statement. (See Doc. No. 14 at 2-3.) 

Additionally, a review of eVoucher reveals that Petitioner through counsel Pomerantz 

and Murray have not complied with the Court’s January 16, 2020 deadline to submit an initial 

case budget and supporting documentation. (Id. at 3) 

The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper 

conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). District 

Case 1:19-cv-01523-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/21/20 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

courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they 

may impose sanctions.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or 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.” 

Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent respectively neither have complied with the 

January 16, 2020 deadline as noted above, nor contacted the Court regarding the noncompliance. 

Accordingly, 

1. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent respectively shall show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed by each filing a written response to this order no later than 

January 22, 2020 or waive any entitlement to show cause. Upon review of counsel’s written 

response or upon a failure to respond, the Court may order a show cause hearing regarding 

imposition of sanctions. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon counsel for 

Petitioner, Brian Pomerantz (habeas@protonmail.com) and Ken Murray 

(kenmurraylaw@gmail.com), and counsel for Respondent, Kenneth Sokoler 

(kenneth.sokoler@doj.ca.gov) and Christina Hitomi Simpson (christina.simpson@doj.ca.gov). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01523-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2