Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01391-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KACI DAVIS, individually and in

her official capacity as Hasting

Park Assistant Manager, DANIELLE

M. BOOKER, individually and in her

official capacity as Hasting Park

Manager, HASTING PARK/F.P.I.

MANAGEMENT, individually and in

their official capacity as a

Business entity in Public Housing,

Defendants.

CIV S-02-1391 GEB PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

June 26, 2002, the court granted plaintiff’s application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his

complaint with leave to amend within 15 days. Within the time

allowed plaintiff sought an extension of time to amend and on

July 15 timely filed a first amended complaint. After it

Case 2:02-cv-01391-GEB-PAN Document 74 Filed 04/21/05 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

2

appeared no defendant had been served with process, on January

22, 2003, the court instructed plaintiff that he must provide the

U.S. Marshal with instructions for service of process upon

defendants within 20 days and warned that if he did not his

action might be dismissed. Plaintiff failed to comply by the

deadline. The Marshal filed return of service on July 2, 2003,

and on July 22, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss for

insufficiency of service of process. On January 29, 2004, this

court found that plaintiff had violated the court’s order but

nonetheless found he should be allowed to proceed. June 4, 2004,

Judge Burrell adopted that recommendation and required the

parties submit a joint status report. July 19, 2004, plaintiff

complained defendants had refused to meet with him. August 17,

nothing having been received after two months, this court ordered

a joint status report within 15 days, specified the required

content, and warned that sanctions might be imposed for failure

to comply. September 1, defendants filed a status report with

declarations that plaintiff had refused to cooperate in preparing

a joint report. Plaintiff never complied with the August 17

order. September 27, 2004, the court made a scheduling order

requiring discovery be completed by March 25, 2005. October 18,

plaintiff objected to the scheduling order and requested the

deadline for initial disclosures be extended. November 1, 2004,

the court extended plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline for

initial disclosures until December 3, 2004. 

March 15, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss for

Case 2:02-cv-01391-GEB-PAN Document 74 Filed 04/21/05 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

3

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his action. Defendants allege

that, in addition to his previous defaults, plaintiff never

provided initial disclosures and failed to appear at his

deposition pursuant to due notice. The motion is supported by

the declaration of Marjorie Manning, attorney for Hasting Park

Apartments, concerning attempts to prepare a joint status report

and to obtain plaintiff’s testimony at deposition.

According to Ms. Manning, on August 19, 2004, she mailed

a proposed report to plaintiff via federal express but he did not

respond at all. On August 26, Ms. Manning telephoned plaintiff;

he refused to cooperate in preparing a report, demanded money and

hung up. On December 13, she wrote to remind plaintiff his

disclosures were overdue but again received no reply. Defendants

duly noticed plaintiff’s deposition on December 28, 2004. 

Plaintiff refused to attend that day but offered alternative

dates and Ms. Manning selected one and rescheduled the deposition

for February 10, 2005. Meanwhile, January 31, Ms. Manning again

wrote asking for plaintiff’s disclosures but received no reply. 

On February 10, Ms. Manning appeared for plaintiff’s deposition

but he did not. Plaintiff’s deposition was again rescheduled,

this time for March 11, days before the deadline for completing

discovery, but plaintiff objected on the ground he had a hearing

on a motion in bankruptcy court that day. Ms. Manning offered to

move the deposition to the afternoon but plaintiff declined.

Plaintiff has filed seven oppositions to defendants’

motion, all untimely and none authorized by rules of court. In

Case 2:02-cv-01391-GEB-PAN Document 74 Filed 04/21/05 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

4

the first, filed out of time on April 11, plaintiff opposes upon

the ground he had no disclosures to make (viz., no witnesses, no

documents, no damages calculation) and that he told defendants’

he could not attend his scheduled deposition because he was

preparing for a hearing in bankruptcy court and that defendants

agreed to reschedule his testimony. He claimed he was entitled

to punitive sanctions from defendants. Plaintiff’s opposition is

belied by the record and rejected on the ground it is incomplete

and untrue. Plaintiff requested the court to extend his deadline

for making disclosures and now will not be heard to say he had

none to make and did not know he had any obligation to reply to

defendants’ letters of inquiry. Likewise, his explanation for

failing to give his testimony to defendants at deposition omits

much with apparent intent to deceive. 

The factors governing exercise of the court’s discretion

to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or

comply with the court’s rules and orders were set out at length

in this court’s January 29, 2004, recommendation (to forgive

plaintiff’s default in timely serving process and allow him to

proceed). The recommendation was generous; it fully alerted

plaintiff to the factors the court would consider in hearing a

request for dismissal and warned him that future defaults may

result in dismissal of his action. Plaintiff entirely ignored

the warning and now all considerations point to dismissal as the

only just remedy as there certainly are no grounds for further

extending plaintiff’s deadlines. 

Case 2:02-cv-01391-GEB-PAN Document 74 Filed 04/21/05 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

5

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The 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).

Dated: April 20, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01391-GEB-PAN Document 74 Filed 04/21/05 Page 5 of 5