Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

CASE NO. 1:10-cv–01790-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF Nos. 36, 37)

Amended Deadline to Amend Pleadings: January

4, 2013

Amended Discovery Cut-off Date: March 4,

2013

Amended Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 14,

2013

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the first

amended complaint, filed January 9, 2012, against Defendants Latraille and Tabor for excessive

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and

assault and battery under state law. (ECF No. 17.) Discovery in this action opened on May 4, 2012,

and Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on July 30, 2012. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants filed an

opposition to the motion to compel on September 24, 2012. On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 36.) On October 16,

2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for sanctions and ordering

1

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/15/12 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

Defendants to file responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within forty five days. (ECF No. 35.) 

On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline and

request for sanctions. (ECF No. 37.) 

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

A. Legal Standard

Federal courts have broad powers to impose sanctions against parties or counsel for improper

conduct in litigation. Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[b]y

presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing,

submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the

person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;. . . [and] (3) the factual contentions

have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after

a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. . . .” Rule 11 imposes an objective

standard of reasonableness, which applies to pro se litigants. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic

Communications Enterprises, Inc., 892 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Further, the Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper

conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447

U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). This includes the “inherent

power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct

utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. V. Natural

Beverage Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wyle v. R. J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709

F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Combs v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir.

1991) (“Dismissal is an appropriate sanction for falsifying deposition”). 

In the Ninth Circuit, sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and where

the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v.

Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002.) (quoting United States v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc., 857

F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted)). Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the

2

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/15/12 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

litigant's control meets this standard. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir.1994).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff brought his motion to compel on the ground that Defendants failed to respond to his

to his interrogatories and requests for production of documents and requested the imposition of

sanctions. Defendants responded that the only discovery requests that were received from Plaintiff

were served on April 3, 2012, prior to the opening of discovery in this action. Plaintiff submits his

proof of service dated May 22, 2012, as evidence that he served the discovery requests after the

opening of discovery and requests the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b). In his motion to

extend the discovery deadline, Plaintiff again seeks sanctions and encloses a copy of the log book

showing that he mailed documents on May 25, 2012, and copied documents were charged on May

31, 2012. 

Defense counsel, an officer of the court, has asserted that she did not receive the discovery

requests served on May 22, 2012. The Court is well aware that mail on occasion is misdirected and

is not received by the party to whom it is addressed. Plaintiff’s evidence that he mailed documents

does not contradict defense counsel’s assertion that she did not receive the discovery requests served

after discovery was opened. The Court fails to find conduct that is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or

fault of the party,” to justify the imposition of sanctions in this instance. Fair Housing of Marin, 285

F.3d at 905. Plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of sanctions is denied.

III. Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

Plaintiff moves to modify the scheduling orderto allow him the full amount of time he would

have had had discovery just opened in this action. Plaintiff’s discovery requests have now been

served on Defendants and the Court has ordered Defendants to respond to the requests within forty

five days. When discovery opens in these actions the Court provides eight months to conduct

discovery. Defendants’ discovery responses are due on December 3, 2012, and discovery in this

action closes on January 4, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25, 35.) While Plaintiff shall be granted an extension

of time to conduct follow-up discovery, the Court declines to extend the discovery deadline by the

full amount of time requested by Plaintiff. The Court shall partially grant Plaintiff’s request to

modify the discovery and scheduling order and the discovery deadlines for the parties shall be

3

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/15/12 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

extended. Accordingly, the deadline to file an amended complaint shall be January 4, 2012; the cutoff date for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, shall be March 4,

2013; and the deadline to file dispositive motions shall be May 14, 2013. 

VI. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed October 15, 2012, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion, filedNovember 13, 2012, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is GRANTED

IN PART; 

1. The deadline to amend the pleadings shall be January 4, 2013;

2. The discovery cut-off date for the parties shall be March 4, 2013;

3. The dispositive motion deadline shall be May 14, 2013; and

b. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 14, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of 4