Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA 

GILLAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS 

ORDER

On April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to obtain counsel

and continued the temporary stay of formal discovery and motion practice until a scheduling 

order or other appropriate order issues. (ECF No. 16.) However, the court’s order made clear 

that “[w]hether or not plaintiffs successfully retain an attorney, plaintiffs and defendants shall 

meet and confer, and then file an updated joint status report with proposed dates for scheduling 

the case no later than June 1, 2015.” (Id.)

On June 1, 2015, defendants filed a separate status report, indicating that the parties could 

not agree on a proposed schedule for the case, and that plaintiffs would apparently be submitting 

their own status report. (ECF No. 19.) However, plaintiffs failed to file any status report by the 

required deadline. Nor did they timely request an extension of time to comply with the court’s 

order.

////

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 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

In the past, the court has been lenient and has generously granted plaintiffs extensions of 

time. However, the court has also previously cautioned plaintiffs that failure to comply with 

court orders may result in sanctions. (ECF No. 14 at 2 n.1.) Although the court liberally 

construes the pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are nonetheless expected to comply 

with court deadlines and procedures. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to impose 

monetary sanctions based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s order to file a joint 

status report. Because the court is cognizant that plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the 

amount of sanctions imposed is necessarily minimal. 

Finally, the court once again orders the parties to properly meet and confer and file an 

updated joint status report regarding scheduling of the case. If the parties disagree as to any issue, 

the parties may set forth their differences with respect to that issue, and the reasons for those 

differences, in the report, but their mere disagreement as to issues does not excuse the obligation 

to file a joint status report. Sanctions will be imposed on any party who fails to participate in 

good faith in the preparation and filing of the joint status report. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 21 days of this order, plaintiffs shall pay to the Clerk of Court a total of 

$100.00 in monetary sanctions based on their failure to comply with the court’s April 

2, 2015 order.

2. Within 21 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer, prepare, and file an 

updated joint status report regarding scheduling of the case.

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions, including 

potential dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2015

 

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 2