Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00033-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JONES, No. 2:10-CV-0033-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

E. McATEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants move to dismiss this case as an appropriate discovery sanction for

plaintiff’s refusal to attend his noticed deposition. According to defendants’ evidence, plaintiff

was served with a deposition notice on August 2, 2011. Prison mail records, plaintiff received

the deposition notice on August 4, 2011, for a deposition to take place on September 8, 2011. 

Defendants’ counsel appeared at the prison on September 8, 2011, for the purpose of taking

plaintiff’s deposition but was told by correctional staff that plaintiff refused to attend his

deposition. While plaintiff denies having received the deposition notice, he provides no evidence

to this effect. He simply says that prison mail records are inaccurate. Moreover, plaintiff does

1

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 65 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 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

not address at all defendants’ contention that, on the day of his deposition, he refused to attend. 

Sanctions are appropriate for a refusal to attend a deposition. See Estrada v.

Rowland, 69 F.3d 405, 406 (9th Cir. 1995). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

court may dismiss the action as an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(d)(c); 37(b)(2)(A)(v). In this case, plaintiff’s unjustified refusal to attend his

deposition warrants dismissal of the action. It is reasonable to conclude that, had there been a

legitimate reason for plaintiff not to attend his deposition on September 8, 2011, plaintiff would

have informed prison officials of that reason. It is apparent from plaintiff’s opposition to the

instant motion to dismiss that he did not attend his deposition because he felt he needed the

assistance of counsel. Given the court’s July 22, 2011, order denying the appointment of

counsel, this is not a valid reason justifying the discovery violation in this case. 

Rule 37(d)(3) requires this court to order plaintiff to pay reasonable expenses,

including attorney’s fees. According to counsel’s declaration, counsel spent ten hours preparing

for and traveling to the deposition. At a reasonable rate of $150.00 per hour, this expense comes

to $1,500.00. In addition, counsel expended $150.00 for the court reporter. Thus, a total

monetary sanction in the amount of $1,650.00 must be ordered. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 65 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docs. 53 & 55) be granted; 

2. This action be dismissed;

3. Plaintiff be ordered to pay $1,650.00 in required monetary sanctions; 

4. Plaintiff’s pending motion for default (Doc. 59) be denied as moot; and

5. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 10, 2012

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 65 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 3