(PC) Armstrong v. Spearman, et al., No. 1:2013cv00246 - Document 75 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' 72 Motion for Terminating Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/20/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 9/14/2015. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS [ECF No. 73] Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. 20 PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 25, 2015, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order, setting November 25, 21 22 2015, as the deadline for completion of all discovery. (ECF No. 68.) On March 30, 2015, Defendant 23 Spearman served Plaintiff with his first set of interrogatories pertaining to Plaintiff s efforts, if any, to 24 exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the claims raised in the first amended complaint. (ECF 25 No. 70-1 at 2.) Plaintiff was served by mail at the address of record, 12036 Bartlett Avenue, Suite F, 26 Adelanto, California 92301. (Id.) Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff s 27 responses were due on or before May 18, 2015, but no responses were received by Defendant. (Id. at 28 3.) 1 On June 8, 2015, Defendants moved to compel Plaintiff s interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 1 2 70.) On June 29, 2015, the Court granted Defendants motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to 3 4 serve his responses to Defendant Spearman s interrogatories no later than July 20, 2015. (ECF No. 72 5 at 5.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that his “failure to comply with this order will result in 6 dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.” (Id, citing Local Rule 110.) To date, Plaintiff has not 7 provided responses to Defendant Spearman s interrogatories. (ECF No. 73-1, Decl. of Erick J. Rhoan 8 (Rhoan Decl.) ¶ 2.) Now pending before the Court is Defendants motion for terminating sanctions, filed July 24, 9 10 2015.1 Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and the motion is deemed submitted for review. Local Rule 11 230(b)-(c). 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Defendants seek terminating sanctions for Plaintiff s failure to comply with discovery requests 15 pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which “authorizes the district court, in its 16 discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of 17 discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 18 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 19 Dispositive sanctions may be warranted where “discovery violations threaten to interfere with 20 the rightful decision of the case.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 21 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit has identified five factors that a court must consider 22 when a party seeks terminating sanctions: “(1) the public s interest in the expeditious resolution of 23 litigation; (2) the court s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [party seeking 24 terminating sanctions]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 25 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); 26 27 28 1 Because Plaintiff is out of custody, Defendants noticed the motion for oral argument on September 2, 2015, at 10:00a.m. After the time to file an opposition expired, the Court vacated the hearing date and took the motion under submission without oral argument. (ECF No. 74.) 2 1 Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir. 1988). Where a court order is 2 violated, the first and second factors will favor sanctions and the fourth will cut against them. Adriana 3 Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990). 4 Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant factors 5 weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. The first two factors strongly support dismissal. The 6 public s interest in resolving this litigation weighs in favor of the issuance of terminating sanctions as 7 this case has been pending since February 2013. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 8 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 9 dismissal.”) Further, the Eastern District of California is one of the busiest federal jurisdictions in the 10 United States and its District Judges carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, the Court s interest in 11 managing its docket weighs in favor of terminating the action. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Mills, No. 1:09- 12 cv-1549 AWI DLB, 2011 WL 976713, at *5 (E.D. Cal. March 16, 2011). 13 Defendants have suffered prejudice due to Plaintiff s failure to respond to discovery requests. 14 The failure to obtain discovery information significantly impairs the Defendants ability to go to trial 15 and to determine whether Plaintiff has adequately exhausted administrative remedies and to make 16 rightful and informed decisions as to whether this affirmative defense should be explored. Plaintiff s 17 failure to respond to discovery has created an unreasonable delay, which in turns creates a 18 presumption of prejudice. Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th 19 Cir. 2006). In addition, the additional efforts to obtain discovery responses required Defendants to 20 incur expenses that would not otherwise have been incurred had Plaintiff responsibility cooperated. 21 The fourth factor requires the Court to consider the availability and adequacy of less drastic 22 sanctions. Defendants have served requests for interrogatories, and Plaintiff has been given ample 23 time to fully respond to them, seek an extension of time to respond, or explain why non-compliance is 24 not possible. Plaintiff has not done any of these, and Defendants were forced to file a motion to 25 compel, which was granted and Plaintiff disobeyed the Court s order to respond to Defendant 26 Spearman s interrogatories. “[A] case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party s failure to 27 comply with deadlines and discovery obligations cannot move forward toward resolution on the 28 merits. Thus, we have also recognized that this factor „lends little support to a party whose 3 1 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 2 progress in that direction.” (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1228. Thus, the fourth factor 3 weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. 4 Finally, with respect to less drastic alternatives, although the Court could issue a less drastic 5 sanction, it would not make a difference in this case given Plaintiff s repeated failure to comply with 6 the applicable rules and court orders. Plaintiff was granted ample time to comply with the Court s 7 June 29, 2015, order granting Defendants motion to compel, and the Court s order specifically 8 advised Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure 9 to prosecute.” (ECF No. 72.) Furthermore, as noted by Defendants, the Court has repeatedly advised 10 Plaintiff that he could not delay the progression of this case. See ECF Nos. 49 (vacating hearing date 11 because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants motion to dismiss and motion for definite statement); 12 52 at 2 (Court s order for Plaintiff to show cause why litigation should not be dismissed: “Plaintiff s 13 inaction hinders the Court s ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates that Plaintiff 14 does not intend to litigate this action diligently.”) 53 (Plaintiff s first request for 60-90 day extension 15 of time to show cause); 57 (Plaintiff s second request for an extension of time to show cause); 58 16 (Court s order granting the second request, but noting this case s “lengthy history of delay due to 17 Plaintiff s failure to comply and/or respond to orders and filings in this case;” “Plaintiff s repeated 18 inaction and/or requests to extend time to comply with orders have hindered the Court s ability to 19 move this case toward disposition and indicates that Plaintiff may not be able to litigate this action 20 diligently.”) 59 (Findings and Recommendations initially recommending this case be dismissed 21 because “Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and has not been in 22 communication with the Court[;]” and that “Plaintiff has been warned previously that his failure to 23 comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.”); 60 (Plaintiff s 24 third request for an extension of time); 61 at 2-3 (Findings and Recommendations denying 25 Defendants motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement, but opining that “the Court 26 does not condone Plaintiff s conduct … Plaintiff s repeated failure to comply with court orders can 27 and will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal of the action;” and that 28 “Plaintiff is hereby forewarned that future noncompliance with court orders and/or failure to meet 4 1 deadlines will result in imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action.”).) As evidenced by 2 the record in this case, it is apparent that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation and it is reasonable to 3 dismiss the action, in lieu of lesser sanctions (which have proven unsuccessful). 4 In sum, the five factors favor dismissal in this case. Plaintiff has ignored the Court s June 29, 5 2015, order (despite the warning of dismissal for failure to comply), as well as Defendant Spearman s 6 interrogatories and previous motion to compel, and the Court can only conclude that Plaintiff has 7 abandoned the litigation in this case and dismissal, with prejudice, is justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 8 Pataglunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-643 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court s sua sponte 9 dismissal of habeas corpus petition with prejudice “for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 10 a court order”). 11 III. 12 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Defendants motion for terminating sanctions be GRANTED; and 15 2. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 18 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 19 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge s 20 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 21 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838- 22 39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 26 August 20, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
