IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2013
RON J. ANDERSON, ET AL.,
GREG ECHOLS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action for, among other things, determination of ownership interests in the "Stringer Mine." Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is defendants' motion for recusal (Doc. 60). Also before the court is defendant Logan's response to the court's April 11, 2013, order to show cause (Doc. 61).
Turning first to defendants' motion for recusal, the court notes that the motion was not served on all parties as required by Eastern District of California Local Rule 135(d). Specifically, there is no evidence, in the form of a proof of service for example, that defendants served their motion on plaintiffs. The motion will be stricken from the docket and no action will be taken on defendants' request until and unless the motion is properly filed and served.
Turning to defendant Logan's response to the court's April 11, 2013, order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court first notes that only defendant Logan has responded even though both defendants Logan and Echols were required to respond separately. The court also notes that Mr. Logan's signature is different than those appearing on other documents purportedly signed by him and filed with the court. For example, the signatures for Mr. Logan on the April 29, 2013, response to the order to show cause is distinctly different from his signature as contained in his August 2, 2011, response to the complaint in this action. The signature on the April 29, 2013, filing is also different than the signature on defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on April 9, 2012.
Defendants shall show further cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11 based on the apparent inconsistencies in signatures described above. In particular, each defendant shall file a separate signed response explaining why Mr. Logan's signatures on the various documents described in this order appear to be different. As part of their response, each defendant shall separately answer the following question: Did Mr. Echols sign one of more of the documents described herein on behalf of Mr. Logan?
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for recusal (Doc. 60) is stricken; and
2. Defendants shall each file separate written responses to this order to show cause within 15 days of the date hereof.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.