Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BE GRANTED

ECF NO. 37

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

On December 4, 2013, Defendants Randy Davis, John Carrico, Jacob Keiser, Paul 

MacDonald and Douglas Ridenour (“Defendants”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions 

against Plaintiff Devon Bradford. (ECF No. 37.)

The Court finds it appropriate for Defendants’ motion to be submitted upon the record 

and briefs on file without need for oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion be granted and this action be 

dismissed.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on August 20, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, 

proceeding pro se, raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants for the use of 

excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest.

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

/ / /

On October 23, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 32.) In their 

motion to compel, Defendants noted that Plaintiff had not provided any initial disclosures under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), which were due on August 2, 2013. Further, Defendants 

propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff, which Plaintiff ignored.

On November 14, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel and ordered 

Plaintiff to provided Defendants with initial disclosures and discovery responses within fourteen 

days. (ECF No. 36.) The Court later received notice that the November 14 order was not 

deliverable as addressed. The order was sent to the address provided by Plaintiff and Plaintiff 

has not provided the Court with an updated address.

Defendants filed the present motion for terminating sanctions on December 4, 2013. 

Defendants’ motion indicates that Plaintiff has not yet provided Defendants with initial 

disclosures or discovery responses.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Sanctions arising from the failure to obey a discovery order are governed by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), which states, in pertinent part:

(b) Failure to Comply with a Court Order.

...

(2) Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action is 

Pending.

(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party’s 

officer, director, or managing agent--or a witness designated under 

Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)--fails to obey an order to provide or 

permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), 

the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. 

They may include the following:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other 

designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, 

as the prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing 

designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated 

matters in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order 

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

III.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for failing to comply with the 

Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendants with initial disclosures and discovery 

responses. “A terminating sanction, whether default judgment against a defendant or dismissal 

of a plaintiff’s action, is very severe.” Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of 

Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). “Only ‘willfulness, bad faith, and fault’ 

justify terminating sanctions.” Id.

In determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate, the Court looks to the 

following five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

Court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) 

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions. Id. In assessing the fifth factor, the Court looks at “whether the court has 

considered lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party 

about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions. Id.

“When a court order is violated, the first and second factors will favor sanctions and the 

fourth will cut against them. [Citation.] Therefore, whether terminating sanctions [are] 

appropriate ... turns on the third and fifth factors.” Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 

F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004).

Addressing the third factor, Plaintiff’s refusal to provide initial disclosures and provide 

discovery responses clearly prejudices Defendants. “The most critical factor to be considered in 

case-dispositive sanctions is whether ‘a party’s discovery violations make it impossible for a 

court to be confident that the parties will ever have access to the true facts.’” Connecticut 

General Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1097. Plaintiff’s complete failure to participate in discovery 

has made it impossible for Defendants to defend against Plaintiff’s claims and allegations. 

Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissal sanctions.

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

With respect to the fifth factor, the Court has already imposed lesser sanctions. On 

November 14, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to provide 

Defendants with initial disclosures and discovery responses. The Court informed Plaintiff that 

any objections he could have asserted had been waived by Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely 

objections. Further, the Court twice warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s 

order would result in further sanctions, and expressly mentioned the possibility of terminating 

sanctions. Therefore, the fifth factor weighs in favor of dismissal sanctions.

The Court’s records indicate that Plaintiff may not have received the Court’s admonition 

regarding the possibility of dismissal sanctions because Plaintiff has not provided the Court with 

an updated, current address. However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court of any 

change of address and, by Local Rule, absent such notice, service at the prior address is deemed 

fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff has not received the 

Court’s prior orders, it is the result of his failure to comply with the Court’s rules and it does not 

change the Court’s findings regarding the appropriateness of dismissal sanctions. Plaintiff has 

not made any effort to participate in this action for nearly six months. The last time the Court 

has heard from Plaintiff was in June 2013, when Plaintiff sought an extension of time because he 

was evicted from his residence. Inexplicably, Plaintiff informed the Court of his eviction 

without providing the Court with an updated address: the address that appeared in the caption of 

Plaintiff’s request for the extension of time used the same address in the Court’s record 

throughout this litigation. If Plaintiff had been evicted from that address, it is unclear why 

Plaintiff used that same address in the notice informing the Court of the eviction. In sum, to the 

extent Plaintiff has not received Defendants’ filings and the Court’s orders since notifying the 

Court of his eviction, the fault lies with Plaintiff for not providing the Court with an updated 

address.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that first, second, third and fifth factors weigh 

in favor of the imposition of dismissal sanctions from Plaintiff’s failure to participate in

discovery in this matter.

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that dismissal sanctions against Plaintiff are appropriate due to Plaintiff’s 

refusal to participate in discovery and general lack of participation in litigating this action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for sanctions be GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 5