Govind v. Felker et al
Filing
50
ORDER signed by District Judge Otis D. Wright, II on 6/24/2011 GRANTING 48 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants James, Roche, and Hunsaker are DISMISSED from this lawsuit with prejudice and Judgment is entered on their behalf. (Marciel, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
1250 Sutterville Road, Ste. 290
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 456-1122
(916) 737-1126 (fax)
Kathleen J. Williams, CSB #127021
LaKeysia R. Beene, CSB #265078
5
6
Attorneys for defendants
JAMES, ROCHE and HUNSAKER
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DANIEL H. GOVIND,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
MR. FELKER, MR. D.L. RUNNELS, MR. )
M. McDONALD,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
CASE NO: 2:08-CV-01183-ODW
Consolidated with Case No:
2:06-CV-02467
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
JAMES, ROCHE AND HUNSAKER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants JAMES, ROCHE and HUNSAKER filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
17
Rule 41(b), Rule 37(d)(1)(A) and Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18
and Eastern District Local Rule 110. The Court, having considered all the papers submitted,
19
hereby rules as follows:
20
(1)
Plaintiff failed to comply with Court Orders and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
21
by refusing to participate at his deposition after being warned that his refusal to comply would
22
result in dismissal of the case; therefore, the case is dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b), FRCP
23
37(b)(2)(A)(v), and Local Rule 110;
24
(2)
The Court and defense counsel warned plaintiff of the consequences of failure to
25
submit to defendants’ discovery requests. However, after being properly served with
26
interrogatories under Rule 33 , requests for production under Rule 34, and request for admission
27
under Rule 36, plaintiff failed to serve his answers, objections, or written responses. Based on
28
Govind v Felker [2:08-cv-01183] Proposed Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Page 1
1
plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery, defendants are prejudiced in attempting to defend
2
against plaintiff’s claims because they are unable to ascertain precisely what evidence plaintiff
3
intends to offer at trial and what conduct on their part will be called upon to defend at trial.
4
Because of plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s Orders requiring him to participate in
5
discovery, dismissal is also appropriate pursuant to FRCP 37(d)(1)(A), FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(v),
6
and FRCP 41(b). In addition, plaintiff’s failure to provide a timely response to the requests for
7
admission has resulted in the admission of those requests which admissions dispense with any
8
potential claim by plaintiff against defendants JAMES, ROCHE and HUNSAKER.
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants JAMES, ROCHE and HUNSAKER Motion
10
to Dismiss is granted. JAMES, ROCHE and HUNSAKER are dismissed from this lawsuit with
11
prejudice and judgment on their behalf is hereby entered.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: June 24, 2011
__________________________________
Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Govind v Felker [2:08-cv-01183] Proposed Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case :
Court:
Case No:
Govind v Felker, et al.
USDC, Eastern District of California
2:08-cv-01183-ODW
I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the City and County of Sacramento. My
business address is 1250 Sutterville Road, Suite 290, Sacramento, California 95822. I am over
the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action.
I am familiar with WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES’ practice whereby the mail is sealed, given the
appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area. Each day's mail is collected
and deposited in a U.S. mailbox after the close of each day's business.
I certify that on June 23, 2011, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b), I deposited in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, a true copy of the document entitled:
9
10
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS JAMES, ROCHE AND
HUNSAKER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
11
12
and addressed as follows:
13
LEGAL DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED
Daniel H. Govind, CDC# K17945
Unit #2 Dorm-2-48L
California Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 608
Tehachapi, CA 93581
14
15
16
17
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction
this service was made.
18
DATED: June 23, 2011
19
/s/ Susan J. Olsson
SUSAN J. OLSSON
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Govind v Felker [2:08-cv-01183] Proposed Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Page 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
