Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961-2/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

THOMAS D. PORTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

G. DAVIS, BADGE #776; BAGBY, BADGE

#933; T. BROWN, BADGE #711; ERIC

MATLOCK; CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:04-cv-5961 TAG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 20 & 21)

On July 25, 2005, the Court heard Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(b)(2)(C) in favor of Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, OFFICERS G. DAVIS,

BAGBY, T. BROWN and ERIC MATLOCK (“Defendants”) (Court Doc. 20) and conducted a

hearing on the Court’s order to show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed (Court

Doc. 21) for failure to comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery responses and to pay

monetary sanctions (Court Doc. 19). Ovidio Oviedo, Jr., Esq., of the law firm of Marderosian,

Runyon, Cercone, Lehman & Armo appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff,

Thomas Porter, did not appear.

///

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 25 Filed 07/28/05 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

27

28

2

After due consideration of the record and the arguments presented, the Court makes the

following findings and orders: 

FINDINGS 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Court Doc. 20) seeks dismissal of the instant action

because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery

responses and to pay monetary sanctions (Court Doc. 19). 

2. The Court’s order to provide discovery responses and to pay monetary sanctions

warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with such order would result in the

imposition of further sanctions including monetary, issue, and terminating

sanctions. 

3. Plaintiff failed to oppose, object, or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss and failed to appear at the July 25, 2005 hearing on the motion to dismiss.

4. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery responses and

to pay monetary sanctions. (Court Doc. 19).

5. The Court’s order to show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed

(Court Doc. 21) directed Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery

responses and to pay monetary sanctions. 

6. The Court’s order to show cause warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with and/or

respond to the Court’s order would result in a dismissal of this action. 

7. Plaintiff failed to comply with, and failed to respond to, the Court’s order to show

cause, and failed to appear at the July 25, 2005 hearing on the order to show cause. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 25 Filed 07/28/05 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

27

28

1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery the

court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including “[a]n order

striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action

or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” 

2

 Rule 11-110 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

provides as follows:

Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

the Court. 

3

8. Good cause exists to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and to dismiss this action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)1 because Plaintiff failed to comply with the

Court’s order to provide discovery responses and to pay monetary sanctions. 

9. Good cause also exists to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 11-1102 of the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 

because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to show cause, as well as

the Court’s order to provide discovery and to pay monetary sanctions.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 25 Filed 07/28/05 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

27

28

4

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. 

2. Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, OFFICER G. DAVIS, OFFICER BAGBY,

OFFICER T. BROWN and ERIC MATLOCK are dismissed as defendants.

3. This action be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

4. The Clerk of this Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 25 Filed 07/28/05 Page 4 of 4