Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468-10/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

MATTHEW H. BECKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC)

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN 

WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 

NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDERS

3-DAY DEADLINE

(Docs. 44, 45)

Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 40.) 

Specifically, service was to be effected on B. Hackworth, Hernandez, L. Hurtado, A. Madrigal 

and J. Scalia. (Id. at 2.) Relevant here, the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was directed to file the “CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver” form 

within 40 days, advising whether defendants agreed to waive service of process without the need 

for personal service. (Id. at 3.) 

When more than 40 days passed without a response, on March 6, 2024, the Court issued 

an order directing CDCR to show cause in writing, within 5 days, why sanctions should not be 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 46 Filed 03/08/24 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

imposed for failing to comply with a court order, or, alternatively, to file a completed waiver 

form. (Doc. 44 [minute order].) 

On March 7, 2024, the CDCR filed neither a document demonstrating good cause for 

violating a court order or a completed waiver form. Instead, CDCR file a form-request for a 14-

day extension of time within which to file the Notice of E-Service Waiver form, noting 

authorization was pending as to Defendants Hackworth, Hernandez, Hurtado, Madrigal and 

Scalia. (Doc. 45.) 

II. DISCUSSION

CDCR has failed to properly respond to the Court’s minute order issued March 6, 2024. It 

fails to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for its failure to file the Notice of E-Service 

Waiver form. Responding to the Court’s minute order by filing a form request for an extension of 

time concerning the Notice of E-Service Waiver form is wholly insufficient. Thus, among other 

things, CDCR provides no explanation why the original 40 days was insufficient to obtain 

authorization for service waiver, or why two additional weeks is necessary. CDCR’s filing does 

not describe when it first sought authorization for service waiver, what obstacles it encountered in 

obtaining authorization, and what efforts it undertook in good faith to meet the Court’s deadline. 

Nor did CDCR comply with the alternative provided for in the minute order by filing a completed 

Waiver of Service of Summons form. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, within 3 days of the date of this order, CDCR shall show cause in writing 

why sanctions should not be imposed for its failure to comply with the Court’s January 22 and 

March 6, 2024 orders. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition 

of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 46 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 2