Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. McDONALD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-0851-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1 The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was May 20, 2014. ECF 

No. 137. Defendant Medina timely filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 145, while 

defendants Betti and Barron moved to dismiss this action due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

discovery rules and court orders, ECF No. 143. Defendants Betti and Baron also requested that 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions be extended in the event their motion to dismiss is 

denied. ECF No. 144. In response to defendants’ motions, plaintiff renewed his request for 

appointment of counsel and asked that these proceedings be stayed. ECF No. 149. As explained 

below, the court recommends that defendants Betti and Barron’s motion to dismiss be denied, 

 1

 Plaintiff claims that defendant Medina was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs when he stopped plaintiff’s heart and/or seizure medications and that defendants Betti and 

Barron were deliberately indifferent when they moved plaintiff to a second-tier cell. 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 150 Filed 08/01/14 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

grants their motion to extend the deadline for filing a dispositive motion, and grants plaintiff’s 

requests for appointment of counsel and for a stay of the proceedings in this case. 

I. Background 

 On July 29, 2013, defendants moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to their requests for 

production. ECF No. 119. In response, plaintiff filed 167 pages of miscellaneous documents 

with the court. ECF No. 121. The court determined that plaintiff had not satisfied his duty to 

respond to defendants’ discovery requests, as it was not clear which of those documents, if any, 

plaintiff intended to serve as his discovery responses. ECF No. 123. On September 10, 2013, the 

court granted defendants’ motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to serve his responses on 

defendants within 14 days. Id. 

 On October 24, 2013, defendants filed a second motion to compel, stating that plaintiff 

had responded to the court’s order by merely sending defendants “the same jumble of documents 

he had filed with the Court.” ECF No. 124-1 at 1. Plaintiff responded that he had made a “good 

faith attempt” to comply with the court’s order by sending “all the documents” to the defendants. 

ECF No. 127. On March 21, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion, explaining that despite 

plaintiff’s “good faith” efforts, it was “not readily apparent which of those documents 

correspond[ed] to each of defendants’ document requests.” ECF No. 137 at 2. The court 

admonished plaintiff that although he is proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Id. at 

3. 

 On May 15, 2014, defendants Betti and Barron moved to dismiss this action after plaintiff 

again failed to comply with the court order directing that he inform defendants which of his 

documents were responsive to each of their document requests. ECF No. 143 (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P 37(b)(2) & 41(b)). 

II. Motion to Dismiss 

A court may dismiss a case for a party’s failure to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b). A court may also impose sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal, on a party who 

refuses to comply with discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). However, “‘[w]here the 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 150 Filed 08/01/14 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

drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are imposed . . . the losing party’s non-compliance must 

be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.’” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (quoting Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 

1985)). “‘[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant’ is all that is 

required to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Id. at 948 (quoting Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 

1341). Furthermore, to determine whether to impose the severe sanction of dismissal, a court 

must consider the following five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (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. Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 

130 (9th Cir. 1987)); Henry, 983 F.2d at 948. 

 Defendants have not shown that plaintiff’s non-compliance is deliberate or stems from 

bad faith. Rather, it appears that the non-compliance with the procedural and technical 

requirement for responding discovery is due to his limited understanding of the law, coupled with 

the fact that he is blind, confined to a wheelchair, and allegedly suffers from several other mental 

and physical impairments. See, e.g., ECF No. 148. 

 Further, while plaintiff has technically failed to provide a proper response to defendants’ 

document requests, plaintiff maintains that he has provided defendants with all of the documents 

he has that are responsive to their requests. ECF No. 127. As noted, he filed those documents 

with the court, and subsequently forwarded them to defense counsel. ECF Nos. 121 & 127. 

Defendants claim they are prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to identify which documents respond 

to each of their requests, claiming that “[w]ithout knowing what evidence Plaintiff intends to use 

to support his claims, [they] are unable to prepare a dispositive motion or mount a defense at 

trial.” ECF No. 143 at 3. The claim is unconvincing. Plaintiff has made clear that the evidence 

he intends to use to support his claims can be found in the documents he has submitted to both the 

court and to defendants. The first 30 of those 167 pages are easily identifiable as plaintiff’s 

responses to defendants’ interrogatories. The second 30 pages consist of numerous requests from 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 150 Filed 08/01/14 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

plaintiff for health care services. The remaining 100 or so pages consist of declarations, 

plaintiff’s medical records and chronos, plaintiff’s administrative appeals, and correspondence 

between plaintiff various legal offices. See ECF No. 121. Defendants are surely capable of 

evaluating these documents and determining which ones are relevant to plaintiff’s claims, 

preparing a dispositive motion if appropriate, and mounting a defense. Although the public’s 

interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket could 

favor dismissal, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits does not. And 

given that plaintiff’s technical non-compliance with the rules of discovery hardly prejudices 

defendants and was not willful, defendants’ motion to dismiss must be denied. However, 

defendants’ request to extend the dispositive motion deadline is granted to the extent that any 

such motion must be filed within 14 days of any order adopting the recommendation herein. 

III. Plaintiff’s Requests for Appointment of Counsel and for a Stay 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel and that these proceedings be stayed. ECF No. 

149. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is granted. The court will refer this matter 

to the court’s ADR and Pro Bono Director Sujean Park to locate an attorney who is admitted to 

practice in this court and is willing to accept the appointment. Plaintiff’s motion to stay is 

granted to the extent that until counsel is appointed, he is not obligated to respond to defendant 

Medina’s pending motion for summary judgment, or to any summary judgment motion filed by 

defendants Betti and Barron. 

IV. Summary of Order and Recommendations 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants Betti and Barron’s motion to modify the schedule and extend the 

dispositive motions deadline (ECF No. 144) is granted in that any such motion must 

be filed within 14 days of any order adopting the recommendation below. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 150 Filed 08/01/14 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

2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 149) is granted and the 

case is referred to Sujean Park, the court’s pro bono coordinator. Until counsel is 

appointed, plaintiff is not obligated to respond to defendant Medina’s pending motion 

for summary judgment, or to any summary judgment motion filed by defendants Betti 

and Barron. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Betti and Barron’s motion to 

dismiss (ECF No. 143) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

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

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 30, 2014. 

 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 150 Filed 08/01/14 Page 5 of 5