Filed: Aug. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER THAT RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . A review of the record in this action reveals that Respondent Warden Ron Davis, through counsel Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Michael Dolida, has not complied with the Court's July 12, 2019 deadline to file a notice of lodging and lodge with the Court the specified state court record. ( See Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Co
Summary: ORDER THAT RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . A review of the record in this action reveals that Respondent Warden Ron Davis, through counsel Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Michael Dolida, has not complied with the Court's July 12, 2019 deadline to file a notice of lodging and lodge with the Court the specified state court record. ( See Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Cou..
More
ORDER THAT RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
A review of the record in this action reveals that Respondent Warden Ron Davis, through counsel Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Michael Dolida, has not complied with the Court's July 12, 2019 deadline to file a notice of lodging and lodge with the Court the specified state court record. (See Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Counsel was previously advised the Court would view with disfavor any request to extend a deadline absent reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances showing good cause. (Id., at 3-4.)
The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court."
Respondent's counsel neither has complied with the July 12, 2019 deadline for lodging the state record, nor contacted the Court regarding the non-compliance.
Accordingly,
1. Respondent's counsel shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed by filing a written response to this order no later than August 16, 2019, or waive any entitlement to show cause. Upon review of counsel's written response or upon a failure to respond, the Court may order a show cause hearing regarding imposition of sanctions.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon counsel for Petitioner, Donald Ritt (ritt@rtthlaw.com) and Verna Wefald (verna@vernawefald.com), and counsel for Respondent, Kenneth Sokoler (kenneth.sokoler@doj.ca.gov) and Michael Dolida (michael.dolida@doj.ca.gov).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
