Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anant Kumar TRIPATI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON INCORPORATED; Dimitric Catsaros, Dr.; Joseph Moyse, Dr., Defendants-Appellees, Arizona Department of Corrections, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15598
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 15, 2018 Pasadena, California
    Filed February 27, 2018
    Kathy Pomeroy, WilmerHale, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Joseph Scott Conlon, John Anthony Kle-can, Esquire, Renaud Cook Drury Mesa-ros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
    Paul Edward Carter, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, Michael E. Gottfried, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appel-lee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Anant Kumar Tripati filed a pro se suit against Corizon, Inc.—the private provider of medical care to Arizona inmates—alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court found that Tripati lied about being blind in support of a procedural motion to have his typewriter returned to him, and dismissed the case as a sanction. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

“We review sanctions imposed by a district court for abuse of discretion.” Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 379 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “[i]n cases where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are ordered, the range of discretion for a district court is narrowed.” Id. at 380. “The most critical criterion for the imposition of a dismissal sanction is that the misconduct penalized must relate to matters in controversy in such a way as to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. This rule is rooted in general due process concerns. There must be a nexus between the party’s actionable conduct and the merits of his case.” Id. at 381 (citations omitted).

The district court found that a nexus existed because “[Tripati]’s misrepresentations concern[ed] his medical condition, which is directly at issue in this lawsuit.” The district court defined the nexus at too high a level of generality. Tripati never sought any relief on the merits (as opposed to an intermediate procedural issue) on the basis of any issues with his eyesight. There was therefore “no nexus between the party’s actionable conduct and the merits of his case” and no “interfere[nce] with the rightful decision of the case.” Id.

We recognize that this is a close case and that the district judge was presented with a difficult decision. Nevertheless, given the pro se status of the plaintiff and our high standard for dismissal, we are obligated to reverse. Accordingly, the case is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.