Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277-9/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 Although the complaint names Officer Van Halen, it appears that the correct spelling is Van Dalen. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHIEF OF POLICE DYER, )

OFFICER VAN HALEN, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0277 LJO DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN PART

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE

MOTION FILING DEADLINE

(Document 57)

Defendants Jerry Dyer and Officer Van Dalen (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion for 1

sanctions against Plaintiff Joseph Puckett (“Plaintiff”) on September 27, 2007. The matter was

heard on November 2, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate

Judge. Erica Camarena appeared on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff is appearing pro se and

appeared on his own behalf. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2005. He alleges claims of harassment and

excessive force based upon a July 2004 incident. Plaintiff further alleges that he continues to

suffer from back pain and chronic headaches and has to take medication for his injuries. 

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 67 Filed 11/06/07 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

27

28

2

Defendants filed their answer on August 4, 2006.

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued a scheduling order that set the discovery deadline as

August 1, 2007. The order further provided that Local Rule 37-251 would not apply unless

otherwise ordered and that extensions of time would be granted only for good cause. 

On August 14, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel an Independent

Medical Examination (“IME”) of Plaintiff and ordered him to appear for an IME on September 6,

2007. The Court warned that failure to comply with the order would result in further sanctions,

including possible dismissal of the action. The Court also extended the discovery deadline for

the sole purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s IME.

On August 29, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to sign an

authorization to release records from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). Plaintiff was

ordered to return the authorization to Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of service of the

order. On September 4, 2007, the Court signed a Protective Order regarding the confidentiality

of Plaintiff’s SSA records.

On September 27, 2007, Defendants filed the instant motion for sanctions based on

Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the September 6, 2007, IME and his failure to return the SSA

authorization. Defendants filed a supplement to their motion on October 5, 2007.

On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “motion for protective order” and “motion for relief

from judgment.” These filings appear to contain Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition of

Defendants’ motion for sanctions.

DISCUSSION 

Defendants move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2),

which allows the Court to impose sanctions against a party who fails to cooperate in discovery. 

Their request is based upon Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Court-ordered IME with Dr. Kurt

Miller on September 6, 2007. Plaintiff did not call Dr. Miller’s office or contact defense counsel. 

Defendants lost a $940 non-refundable deposit as a result. Declaration of Erica M. Camarena, ¶¶

1-4.

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 67 Filed 11/06/07 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

27

28

3

Plaintiff has also failed to return the signed authorization despite attempts to contact him. 

Although Plaintiff returned a phone message from counsel’s secretary, when asked if she could

pick up the signed authorization, Plaintiff stated that he was “still asleep and would call [] back

when he woke up.” He did not return the call or subsequent messages. Declaration of Juliette

Sierra, ¶¶ 2-5.

In their supplemental brief, Defendants also contend that Plaintiff was uncooperative

during his psychological IME with Harold Seymour, Ph.D., conducted on September 14, 2007. 

Plaintiff arrived 20 minutes late and was generally uncooperative. He refused to provide specific

information about his criminal history, other than saying he has not been to jail in a while but that

he was a “born suspect” and had been arrested on 90-100 occasions. Declaration of Harold

Seymour, Ph.D. (“Seymour Dec.”), ¶ 3. Plaintiff also refused to provide information about his

health history, save for complaints about his head and back. He would not answer when asked

what medication his physician is prescribing for him. He also refused to discuss his psychiatric

history, including medication information, as well as his personal information. Moreover, his

“response style” during the personality inventory test prevented the results from being

interpretable. Plaintiff also made a comment about not showing up for his IME with Dr. Miller

and that this cost “$900.” Seymour Dec., ¶¶ 4-9. Dr. Seymour was unable to formally assess

Plaintiff’s memory due to his lack of cooperation. Seymour Dec., ¶ 10. 

At the hearing, Plaintiff continued to dispute the relevancy of his SSA records. This issue

has previously been decided, however, and the Court reminded Plaintiff that information relating

to his medical history is relevant to the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to sign

the SSA authorization within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. 

Plaintiff is further ORDERED TO APPEAR for an IME with Dr. Miller on January 14,

2008, at 2:15 p.m. Defendants SHALL advance Plaintiff cab fare for transportation. The

discovery deadline is extended to January 14, 2008, for purposes of conducting this IME. 

PLAINTIFF IS WARNED THAT IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO COMPLY

WITH DISCOVERY AND THIS COURT’S ORDERS, THE COURT WILL RECOMMEND

THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED.

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 67 Filed 11/06/07 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

27

28

4

Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $940, which represents the amount

Defendants advanced for the prior IME, is GRANTED. This amount will be added to

Defendants’ costs if they prevail in this matter, or will be subtracted from Plaintiff’s award

should he prevail.

Defendants’ remaining requests for sanctions are DENIED. 

Defendants’ request to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline, which was

previously set for October 1, 2007, is DENIED. Defendants have failed to establish good cause

for the extension. The Court further notes that Defendants’ request to extend the deadline was

included in their supplemental briefing, filed on October 5, 2007, after the dispositive motion

filing deadline had passed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 5, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 67 Filed 11/06/07 Page 4 of 4