Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896-5/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

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

Plaintiff Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has filed two separate motions for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 24 and 26.) The first motion is self-dated July 25, 2015 and filed July 

30, 2015, but is not signed. The supporting declaration that accompanies the motion is likewise not 

signed. (ECF No. 24.) The second motion, filed August 6, 2015, is identical but the motion and 

declaration are properly executed. (ECF No. 26.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a Court to impose sanctions upon attorneys or 

unrepresented parties “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or 

needlessly increase the cost of litigation....” The imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is a matter within 

TYRONE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VIDURRIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

[ECF Nos. 24, 26]

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 09/01/15 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

the discretion of the trial court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Any Rule 11 sanctions “must be limited to what 

suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 also imposes a “safe harbor rule,” which 

requires a party requesting sanctions under Rule 11 to wait 21 days between serving the opposing 

party and filing the motion with the Court. This allows the offending party an opportunity to correct 

any error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against defense counsel because Defendants served three documents 

on him at the wrong address of record: a request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading

(ECF No. 12), Martinez’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14.), and Vidaurri’s answer to complaint (ECF 

No. 15). Plaintiff contends that Defendants were attempting to “hoodwink” him. Plaintiff requests an 

award of all court costs, filing and copying fees and judgment in his favor. 

Defendants submit that upon receipt of the ECF filings, defense counsel had Plaintiff 

personally served with the critical documents. (ECF No. 29, Declaration of Gabriel Ullrich (Ullrich 

Decl.) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defense counsel submits that Defendants’ mistake as to Plaintiff’s address was 

nothing more than a clerical error. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendants have taken steps to make sure the mistake 

is not repeated. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

First, Plaintiff’s motion was filed in violation of the twenty-one day “safe harbor provision,” a 

provision which is strictly enforced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677-

78 (9th Cir. 2005). Indeed, had Plaintiff complied with the safe-harbor requirement, the instant 

motion would not have been filed, since Defendants took immediate steps to ameliorate the situation 

by serving Plaintiff with the critical documents by personal service the same day Plaintiff filed his 

properly executed motion for sanctions. (Ullrich Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, there is no basis to find that 

Defendants’ error in serving Plaintiff at the wrong address was intended to harass, cause unnecessary 

delay, or motivated by a desire to needlessly increase the costs of litigation. Upon notification of the 

mistake, Defendants took prompt action by serving all documents on Plaintiff at the correct address of 

record, and defense counsel represents that he has taken steps to ensure this mistake is not repeated. 

(Id. ¶ 6.)

///

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 09/01/15 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

II.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3