Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. HUNTER, D.V.M., )

individually and as class )

representative for all others )

similarly situated; and HOWARD )

ELEY, individually and as class )

representative for all others )

similarly situated , )

) 2:06-cv-0457-GEB-PAN(JFM)

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SHERIFF’S ) CONFERENCE AND RULE 4(m)

DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS, in ) NOTICE

his individual and official )

capacity; JAN SCULLY, SACRAMENTO )

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, in her )

individual and official capacity; )

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY )

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; COUNTY OF )

SACRAMENTO; and WILLIAM KEVIN )

SOWLES, in his individual capacity,)

and DOES 1 through 100, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The March 6, 2006, Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (“March 6 Order”) scheduled a status conference

in this case for June 19, 2006, and required the parties to file a

joint status report no later than fourteen days prior to the status

conference. The Order further required that a status report be filed

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 17 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 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

As the Order states: 1

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

Status Report does not excuse the other

parties from their obligation to timely file

a status report in accordance with this

Order. In the event a party fails to

participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a

declaration explaining why it was unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party or

parties. 

March 6 Order at 2 n. 1.

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 2

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

(continued...)

2

regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. 

1

On June 5, 2006, pursuant to the March 6 Order, Defendants

County of Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Lou Blanas,

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, Office of the District

Attorney County of Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento

(“Defendants”) filed a status report and declaration from defense

counsel, in which defense counsel attests he attempted to communicate

with Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to the deadline for submitting the

joint status report, but received no response. Defendants’ June 5

status report also reflects that it is unknown whether Defendant

William Kevin Sowles has been served with the Complaint.

Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) in a writing to

be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 21, 2006, why sanctions

should not be imposed against them and/or counsel under Rule 16(f) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to file a timely

status report. The written response shall state whether Plaintiffs or

counsel are at fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.2

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 17 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 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

(...continued) 2

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

3

If a hearing is requested, it will be held on September 11, 2006, at

9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled

to that date. In accordance with the requirements set forth in the

March 6 Order, the parties are to file a joint status report no later

than August 28, 2006. 

If Defendant Sowles is not served by July 3, 2006, said

defendant could be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m). Accordingly, if Plaintiffs do not effectuate

service on Defendant Sowles by July 3, 2006, Plaintiffs are ordered to

show cause no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 17, 2006, why Defendant

Sowles should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiffs’

failure to serve said Defendant within the 120-day time period

prescribed by Rule 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 7, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 17 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3