Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael J. Salazar,

Plaintiff

-vsArizona Department of Corrections, 

et al.,

Defendants.

CV-15-0688-PHX-DJH (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

The Court’s Scheduling Order, filed December 16, 2015 (Doc. 26), directed the 

parties to confer and to “submit to the Court their Joint Discovery Plan/Rule 26(f) 

Planning Meeting Report on or before January 29, 2016.” (Id. at 5 (emphasis in 

original).) On February 1, 2016, Defendants filed a unilateral “Joint Discovery Plan” 

(Doc. 26), indicating that Plaintiff had failed to participate in preparing a joint plan by 

providing his portions of the report.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f) provides:

If a party or its attorney fails to participate in good faith in 

developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by 

Rule 26(f), the court may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, 

require that party or attorney to pay to any other party the 

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) further provides for sanctions under Rule 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii) if a party “fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Those 

sanctions include dismissal, default judgment, and/or contempt.

It appearing that Plaintiff has failed “to participate in good faith in developing and 

submitting a proposed discovery plan,” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(f), and failed to comply 

with the Scheduling Order, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on February 2, 

2016 (Doc. 28). That Order gave Plaintiff fourteen days from the filing of that Order, to 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 29 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(f) and/or 16(f) as a result of failure to comply with the Court’s Order to 

participate in developing and submitting a joint discovery plan.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded. Moreover, on February 1, 2016, the Court 

was advised that Plaintiff had been transferred to a new prison unit. Accordingly, the 

Court updated Plaintiff’s address to that provided, and forwarded the February 2, 2016 

order to that address. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address as 

mandated in the Notice of Assignment (Doc. 3) and the Order filed April 24, 2015 (Doc. 

5). 

Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) permits as a sanction “dismissing the action or proceeding in 

whole or in part.” Such a sanction, if justified, is appropriate for failure to participate in 

pretrial conferences as ordered. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 

2007). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a multi-factor analysis for applying such a 

sanction:

We have constructed a five-part test, with three subparts to the fifth 

part, to determine whether a case-dispositive sanction under Rule 

37(b)(2) is just: “(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.” The sub-parts of the fifth factor are 

whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, whether it tried 

them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the 

possibility of case-dispositive sanctions. This “test” is not 

mechanical. It provides the district court with a way to think about 

what to do, not a set of conditions precedent for sanctions or a script 

that the district court must follow.

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2007). "The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most 

cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key 

factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions." Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 

F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's 

failure to participate in the discovery planning process, failure to respond to the Court’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 29 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Order to Show Cause, and failure to alert the Court to his change of address, all indicate 

that Plaintiff is content to let the case languish and/or be dismissed. The same things 

prevent this Court from effectively managing its docket. Without Plaintiff’s 

participation, Defendants are left to chase Plaintiff to attempt to conduct discovery to 

defend the case. 

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires 

the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available, attempted, and has 

warned. Plaintiff was warned in the Court’s Order to Show Cause about the risk of 

dismissal, and sought Plaintiff’s explanation to permit an attempt to address matters 

necessary to moving the case forward. Without Plaintiff’s willingness to respond, and 

even the willingness to keep the Court apprised of his location, indicate that sanctions 

less drastic than dismissal are meaningfully available.

The undersigned finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. 

In the instant case, and in the absence of a showing that Plaintiff’s actions are the result 

of an intent to obtain unfair advantage (as opposed to simply abandoning the case) the 

undersigned finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The 

Complaint and this action should therefore be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and 41, this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 29 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: February 22, 2016

15-0688o Order 16 02 22 re RR Dismiss FTP.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 29 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 4