Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01317/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01317-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVERN AUSTIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; EDDIE

RAMIREZ; and DOES 1-5,

Defendants. 

 CIV-S-03-1317 DFL-GGH

ORDER

Plaintiff Lavern Austin brings this suit against defendants

San Joaquin County (“the county”) and San Joaquin County

Substance Abuse Counselor Eddie Ramirez for false arrest in

violation of the Fourth Amendment. On February 17, 2005,

Austin’s attorney was served with a Notice of Deposition for

Austin to appear on March 10, 2005. (Berry Decl. Ex. A.) Austin

failed to make any response to the Notice and failed to appear at

the deposition. (Id. Ex. B.) 

Austin’s attorney did appear at the deposition. He stated

at the deposition that he has not had any contact with his client

Case 2:03-cv-01317-DFL-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

for over a year. (Id. at 5.) He also said that when he received

the notice of deposition, he diligently attempted to locate and

notify Austin by all means available to him. (Id.) 

Specifically, he sent letters to her last known address and

placed telephone calls to all the phone numbers he had for her. 

(Id.) He received no response to these repeated attempts to

contact her. (Id.) 

Defendants now bring this motion for terminating sanctions

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d), for Austin’s failure to appear at her

deposition, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), for Austin’s failure to

prosecute her claim. They ask the court to dismiss Austin’s

claim with prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a notice

of non-opposition to defendants’ motion on behalf of Austin. For

the following reasons, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion. 

Rule 37(d) allows the court to order sanctions, including

dismissal of the suit, for a party’s failure to appear at her own

deposition. Rule 41(b) allows the district court to dismiss a

plaintiff’s claim for failure to prosecute or comply with the

federal rules of civil procedure. Before a district court

dismisses a complaint, it must weigh 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.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker,

24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). Additionally, under Rule

Case 2:03-cv-01317-DFL-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

37(d), the district court must find that a party’s behavior in

ignoring the depositions demonstrated willfulness, bad faith, or

fault. Id. 

Plaintiff’s actions in this case warrant dismissal. Austin

opposed her counsel’s request for withdrawal earlier in this

litigation, yet has made no effort to remain in contact with him. 

She has failed to appear at her deposition and has given no

indication that she can be reached to reschedule it. She has not

communicated with either her attorney or the court for at least a

year. Her attorney has submitted a notice of non-opposition to

this motion on her behalf, and she has given no indication that

she disagrees with this filing. Her actions, in short, give all

indication that she has abandoned this litigation. 

Austin’s abandonment of this case has, for obvious reasons,

prejudiced defendants in their effort to prepare for trial. 

(Mot. at 3.) Although the court has not tried to impose less

drastic sanctions, any attempt to do so appears futile in light

of Austin’s repeated and continued refusal to communicate with

her attorney or the court. Moreover, Austin has been put on

notice of the possibility of dismissal by defendants’ motion and

has chosen not to oppose it. Finally, Austin’s failure to appear

was due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault, as all the evidence

suggests that she was fully capable of appearing and chose not

to. Id. at 1167. 

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01317-DFL-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

For the above reasons, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion

for terminating sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) and 41(b). 

Austin’s suit is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk shall enter

judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01317-DFL-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/23/05 Page 4 of 4