Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180802_0005348.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:37:56+00:00

Document:
DONALD P. WANG, et al., Defendants.
Before the court is in personam Defendant Donald P. Wang's response to the court's order to show cause. (2d Resp. (Dkt. # 48).) Mr. Wang is proceeding pro se. (See Dkt.) The court has considered Mr. Wang's response and declaration, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court enters a monetary sanction of $250.00 for Mr. Wang's failure to follow the court's orders.
A federal court's inherent authority allows it to “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct [that] abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017); see also Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Three primary sources of authority enable courts to sanction parties or their lawyers for improper conduct: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to signed writings filed with the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the court's inherent power.”). This inherent authority includes the ability “to impose sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct, ” Fink, 239 F.3d at 992, such as the disobedience of a court order, see, e.g., Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fink, 239 F.3d at 991). The court does not simply disregard a party's pro se status when considering sanctions, see Curt-Allen: Of the Family Byron v. Lovick, No. C10-0609JLR, 2010 WL 3122822, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2010) (quoting Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994)), because a pro se party “should not be allowed to willfully and in bad faith interfere with the court's ability to manage its docket and resolve litigation expeditiously, ” Garity v. Donahue, No. 2:11-cv-01805-MMD-CWH, 2014 WL 1168913, at *6 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2014).
The court appreciates that misunderstandings can happen, but Mr. Wang's conduct displays a pattern of willful disregard for the court's orders. Despite Mr. Wang's characterizations, several court orders directed the parties to appear for the July 23, 2018, pretrial conference and to file an agreed proposed pretrial order that same day. (See Sched. Order; 7/11/18 Order; Dkt. (6/27/18 entry).) Mr. Wang did neither of those things. His failure to comply has hindered Mr. Johnson's ability to prepare for trial and wasted valuable court time. Although Mr. Wang is proceeding pro se, he is nevertheless responsible for following court orders-a responsibility he has not fulfilled. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). For those reasons, the court orders Mr. Wang to pay a sanction of $250.00 within 10 days of the date of this order. Should Mr. Wang fail to do so, the court will consider additional sanctions, including entry of default.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1927
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.