Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonel Hernandez
Plaintiff
J. Welch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LEONEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER FOR 

WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA STATE

PRISON, LANCASTER TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 33)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL 

TO RESCHEDULE THE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Leonel Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter was scheduled for a settlement conference via Zoom videoconferencing 

before the undersigned on December 10, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. 

On November 4, 2024, the Court issued its Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 

Testificandum, directing Plaintiff’s custodian to produce him for a Zoom video conference on 

December 10, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (See ECF No. 29.) The writ was served on the institution’s 

litigation coordinator via email and regular mail on that same date. 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 35 Filed 12/30/24 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

2

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff failed to appear at the settlement conference. 

Accordingly, the Court issued its Order For Warden Of California State Prison, Lancaster To 

Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed For Failure To Comply With A 

Court Order on December 11, 2024. (ECF No. 33.) The warden was directed to respond within 14 

days. (Id. at 2.) 

On December 23, 2024, the warden filed a response to the OSC. (ECF No. 34.) 

II. DISCUSSION

The warden’s response to the OSC (ECF No. 34) is supported by the Declaration of J. 

Orellana, Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison, Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”). (ECF No. 

34-1.) The warden advises that on December 10, 2024, Plaintiff was housed in restricted housing 

facility DB5. (ECF No. 34 at 2; ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 3.) The facility has a limited number of officers

whose duties include escorting inmates to and from appointments and video conferences. (ECF 

No. 34 at 2.) At about 12:30 p.m., four different officers in the facility responded to multiple 

medical emergencies involving different inmates, including one claiming to experience suicidal 

ideation. (ECF No. 34 at 2; ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 7.) Those emergencies took the officers away from 

their regular duties, directly affecting the time it took to retrieve Plaintiff for his video conference. 

(Id.) Further, the warden states a number of other factors compounded the delay, including the 

manner of transportation given the high security level in facility DB5, the required search of the 

inmate prior to transportation, and the slow movement by the inmate given shackling of his hands 

and feet, coupled with the significant distance between the housing unit and the video conference 

room. (ECF No. 34 at 2-3; see also ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 5.)

1 Plaintiff arrived at the video conference 

room at around 1:30 p.m.; unfortunately, by the time the escorting officers set up the video 

conference, the conference had already been concluded. (ECF No. 34 at 3; ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 9.) 

CSP-LAC staff work expeditiously to process and execute court orders and to ensure inmates 

arrive at appearances in a timely manner. (ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 10.) Unfortunately, due to unexpected 

circumstances, staff were delayed on this occasion. (Id.) The warden states Plaintiff’s failure to 

1 Defense contacted Orellana on that date concerning Plaintiff’s delay. (Doc. 34-1, ¶ 8.) At that time, Orellana 

acknowledged there had been a delay, but was not aware of the specific reason. (Id.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 35 Filed 12/30/24 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

3

timely appear did not involve willful disobedience and apologizes to the Court for the 

inconvenience and expense caused. (ECF No. 34 at 4.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The OSC issued December 11, 2024 (ECF No. 33) is DISCHARGED; and

2. Defense counsel is DIRECTED to contact Sujean Park, no later than January 8, 

2025, to reschedule the settlement conference in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 35 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 3