# (PC) Wilkins v. Barber

> District Court, E.D. California · March 3, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017436

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 3, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017436

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that 26 a movant satisfies Rule 11’s “mandatory 21 day safe-harbor period” by serving “the allegedly 27 offending party with a filing-ready motion as notice that it plans to seek sanctions”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P
BROWN,
12
Plaintiff,
13 ORDER
v.
14
DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

17
18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 30, 2020, plaintiff signed and
19 presented to prison authorities for mailing, a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal
20 Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion accompanied his objections to the January 24, 2020
21 findings and recommendations. On February 25, 2020, the district court adopted the findings and
22 recommendations over plaintiff’s objections.
23 Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the moving party serve
24 the motion for sanctions on the offending party 21 days before filing it with the court. Accord
25 Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that
26 a movant satisfies Rule 11’s “mandatory 21 day safe-harbor period” by serving “the allegedly
27 offending party with a filing-ready motion as notice that it plans to seek sanctions”).
28
1 The proof of service appended to plaintiff's motion indicates that on January 30, 2020,
2 | plaintiff served the motion on Deputy Attorney General Lucas L. Hennes, who responded to the
3 | court’s orders by special appearance, the same day plaintiff mailed the motion to the court.
4 | Plaintiff fails to set forth any other facts demonstrating he complied with Rule 11(c). Thus,
5 | plaintiff failed to provide notice as required under Rule 11 and is denied on that basis.!
6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 54) is denied.
7 | Dated: March 3, 2020
8 Al i; Noreen
9 KENDALL J. Wan
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
/wilk1338.san
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
——_—_
' Moreover, in light of the district court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations,
28 | plaintiffs motion is now moot.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017436. Public record. Not legal advice.