IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 2, 2012
JOHN KENT, PLAINTIFF,
STUART RIND; RICK VILLUCCI; DIANA ROACH; RICK LOPEZ; STEPHEN TAKIMOTO; LESLIE YOAKUM; CARL VEGA; SUE STIREWALT; KEVIN KERR; JIM KLEIMAN; THOMAS EBLING; SUE PAYNE; ANDREA SOUZA; ANITA SISNEROS; JACQUELYN MAES; PATRICIA NELSON; AND UNKNOWN CSLB EMPLOYEES 1-15, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On February 2, 2012, the undersigned conducted a status (pretrial scheduling) conference ("scheduling conference") in this case, and a scheduling order will be separately issued.*fn1 This order concerns plaintiff's ongoing failure to follow the court's orders and Local Rules, and the resulting sanction.
As discussed at the scheduling conference, plaintiff failed to file a status report by January 19, 2012, as ordered by the court (see Order, Dec. 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 55), and materially failed to communicate with defendants' counsel regarding the preparation of status reports in advance of the scheduling conference. Instead, plaintiff filed a status report on January 30, 2012, which addresses plaintiff's failure to follow the court's order by stating: "Plaintiff apologizes for his tardy submission of this status report" (Dkt. No. 59). As noted by the undersigned, plaintiff has repeatedly and consistently failed to follow the court's orders and procedural rules in this case and another he filed in this court. (See Order, Nov. 16, 2011, at 4, Dkt. No. 52; Order & Order To Show Cause, Oct. 21, 2011, Dkt. No. 50; Order, Sept. 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 48; Order To Show Cause & Findings & Recommendations, June 28, 2011, Dkt. No. 42; Order, Jan. 4, 2011, Dkt. No. 29; see also, e.g., Findings & Recommendations, Dec. 1, 2011, Dkt. No. 73, adopted by Order, Jan. 9, 2012, Dkt. No. 74, filed in Kent v. City of Sacramento et al., 2:07-cv-02361 MCE KJN PS (closed).)
Because of plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the court's orders and Local Rules, the undersigned was left with no choice but to either impose a monetary sanction on plaintiff or recommend that his case be dismissed. See Local Rules 110 and 183(a). In view of the policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the undersigned announced at the scheduling conference an intention to impose a $250 sanction on plaintiff, but allowed plaintiff to address the possible sanction. After hearing from plaintiff, the undersigned reduced the sanction to $100, payable within 30 days. It appears that plaintiff paid the $100 sanction on February 2, 2012, shortly after the scheduling conference.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff is sanctioned in amount of $100, payable to the Clerk of Court. However, the undersigned notes that it appears that plaintiff paid the sanction on February 2, 2012.
2. On or before February 17, 2012, plaintiff shall file a Notice of Current Contact Information, which provides plaintiff's current mailing address and valid phone number. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to notify the Clerk of Court of any change to his address or phone number. Local Rule 182(f) ("Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective. Separate notice shall be filed and served on all parties in each action in which an appearance has been made.")
IT IS SO ORDERED.