Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01071/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01071-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
F. Gonzalez
Defendant
Ronnell Hill
Plaintiff
T. Peterson
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

RONNELL HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 43); (2) 

DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 

(ECF No. 45); AND (3) REQUIRING 

DEFENSE COUNSEL TO NOTIFY COURT 

OF COMPLIANCE WITH ECF No. 41

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Peterson on Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to courts claim.

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 

request for production of documents. (ECF No. 36.) Defendant opposed the request. 

(ECF No. 39.) On April 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the 

request, and ordered Defendant to provide a further response within thirty days. (ECF 

No. 41.)

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, stating that defense 

counsel failed to respond to interrogatories within the allotted time. (ECF No. 40.) 

Defendant filed no response. On April 30, 2015, the Court granted the motion to compel, 

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 46 Filed 06/08/15 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

ordered Defendant to respond, and ordered Defendant to show cause why she should 

not be sanctioned for failing to respond in the first instance. (ECF No. 43.) 

On May 14, 2015, defense counsel responded to the order to show cause. (ECF 

No. 44.) Counsel explained that Plaintiff’s interrogatories were forwarded to counsel’s

legal staff for processing, but inadvertently not calendared or entered into counsel’s 

database. The interrogatories themselves were misplaced. Defense counsel 

subsequently suffered from a serious medical condition requiring admission to the 

Emergency Room and substantial time off work. He states that he responded to 

Plaintiff’s interrogatories on May 14, 2015, in compliance with the Court’s order granting 

the motion to compel. 

On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document styled, “Defendants Failure to Comply 

with Court Order.” (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff stated that, as of April 29, 2015, defense 

counsel had not complied with the Court’s April 14, 2015 order granting in part and 

denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. He requested that Defendant be sanctioned 

$50.00.

Although the clerical errors that led to counsel’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories are not excusable, the Court nevertheless will discharge the order to 

show cause based on delays caused by defense counsel’s unanticipated medical 

condition. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in relation to the Court’s April 14, 2015 order will 

be denied. In that order, the Court afforded Defendant thirty days in which to respond. 

Thus, Defendant’s failure to respond by April 29, 2015 is not in violation of the order and 

does not warrant the imposition of sanctions. Nevertheless, in light of Defendant’s prior 

difficulties responding to discovery, the Court will order Defendant to file a notice of 

compliance with the April 14, 2015 order within fourteen days.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 43), filed April 30, 2015, is HEREBY 

DISCHARGED;

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 46 Filed 06/08/15 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

2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions (ECF No. 45) is DENIED; and

3. Defendant is ordered to file a notice of compliance with ECF No. 41 within 

fourteen days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 46 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 3