Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-15/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

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE AMOUNT 

OF $935.00 AND STAYING ORDER IN 

LIGHT OF PLAINTIFF’S INDIGENCY 

(Docs. 59, 61, and 62)

I. Background

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On April 1, 2015, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. 

(Doc. 59.) If a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be 

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney 

advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the 

motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, “the court must not 

order this payment if . . . the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was 

substantially justified . . . or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 63 Filed 04/28/15 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

27

28

2

Also on April 1, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. 61.) If a 

motion to compel is denied, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the 

movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the 

motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). “But the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially 

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. 

Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to file a response to Defendant’s requests for 

expenses incurred in moving to compel his deposition and in opposing his motion to compel. He 

filed his response on April 20, 2015. (Doc. 62.) 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s response sets forth no arguments which either substantially justify Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel and his refusal to answer questions at his deposition or make an award of 

expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), (B). As to Plaintiff’s first argument, his indigency 

does not shield him from a finding that Defendant is entitled to reasonable expenses, although it 

does preclude enforcement, as discussed below. Thomas v. Gerber Prod., 703 F.2d 353, 357 (9th 

Cir. 1983). 

Regarding his second argument, although Plaintiff contends he did not refuse to take part 

in his deposition or walk out, Plaintiff refused to answer relevant questions Defendant’s counsel 

was entitled to ask, thereby obstructing her ability to fully and effectively depose him. Plaintiff’s 

belief that he was entitled refuse to answer questions he thought to be fruitless is unavailing and 

under the circumstances, Defendant’s decision to terminate the deposition and seek relief from the 

Court was justified. (Doc. 52, Motion, Ex. B.)

Finally, Plaintiff states that he intended no disrespect to the Court and he was not 

attempting to deny Defendant a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in this action. While 

that may be so with respect to the former, the record does not support the latter. Defendant’s 

counsel specifically cautioned Plaintiff that she was entitled to ask questions to clarify his claim 

against Defendant and warned him that if he continued to refuse to answer questions, she would 

terminate the deposition, file a motion to compel, and seek expenses. (Id., 20:6-13.) Counsel 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 63 Filed 04/28/15 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

27

28

3

asked if he understood and Plaintiff responded, “Yes. You can end it on that note and you can 

compel it.” (Id., 20:15-16.) While Plaintiff may have been reluctant to answer counsel’s

questions for unrelated self-interested reasons, questions regarding gangs, gang activity, and 

religion are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant failed to protect him from harm at 

the hands of gang members.1 

In conclusion, Rule 37 requires that reasonable expenses incurred be assessed, in the 

absence of substantial justification or a determination assessment would be unjust. Neither

exception is presented here. The Court has reviewed the fees sought by Defendant and it finds that 

(1) 3.5 hours of time at a rate of $170.00, resulting in attorney’s fees of $595.00 for filing the 

motion to compel, is reasonable, and (2) 2 hours of time at a rate of $170.00, resulting in 

attorney’s fees of $340.00 for opposing Plaintiff’s motion to compel, is reasonable. According, 

Plaintiff is required to pay Defendant $935.00. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the Ninth 

Circuit has held that it is an abuse of discretion to order a sanction which cannot be performed,

and Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis. Thomas, 703 F.2d at 357. Plaintiff 

also reiterates his indigency in his response. Therefore, the order shall be stayed. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Expenses in the amounts of $595.00 and $340.00 are assessed against Plaintiff;

2. The order assessing expenses in the amounts of $595.00 and $340.00 is stayed; and

3. At any time prior to the closure of this action, Defendant may move to lift the stay 

and enforce the sanction upon a showing that Plaintiff has the ability to pay 

$935.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff alleges he is Muslim and should not have been housed with gang members.

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 63 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3