Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06387/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06387-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELA ENRIQUEZ, on her own )

behalf and on behalf of THE )

ESTATE OF ALEJANDRO )

ENRIQUEZ, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6387 OWW/SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

DISCOVERY ORDER (Doc. 39)

AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

LODGE PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

On January 21, 2005, plaintiff, then represented by counsel,

filed a First Amended Complaint on her own behalf and on behalf

of the Estate of Alejandro Enriquez, alleging that her son,

Alejandro, died as a result of excessive force while an inmate at

Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). Plaintiff alleges that

prison officials failed to train, supervise, and discipline

custodial staff regarding the use of force and that custodial

staff unnecessarily used deadly force to restrain Alejandro

during a prison riot. Defendants are Edward Alamedia, Jr. in his

individual capacity as former Director of the California

Department of Corrections and James A. Yates in his individual

capacity as Warden of PVSP. 

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 8
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

2

By the Scheduling Order filed on November 9, 2005, nonexpert discovery was to be completed by April 28, 2006. 

Defendants noticed plaintiff’s deposition for March 1, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s deposition was re-noticed for March 20, 2006. 

Neither plaintiff nor her attorney appeared for the deposition

because plaintiff’s counsel could not get in touch with

plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Steven Collette, filed a

motion to withdraw on March 24, 2006 on the ground that plaintiff

was unable to pay costs incurred in litigating this action

pursuant to the fee arrangement between Mr. Collette and

plaintiff. The motion to withdraw was granted by Order filed on

April 19, 2006. The April 19, 2006 Order specifically advised

plaintiff:

Plaintiff is ... advised that regardless of

whether or not Plaintiff is represented by

counsel, Plaintiff will be expected to comply

with orders of the Court, including all

deadlines set in the Court’s order of

November 9, 2005 ....

A failure to comply with an order of the

Court may result in a recommendation that the

action be dismissed or in other sanctions. 

Local Rule 11-110.

On April 27, 2006, defendants moved for an order extending the

non-expert discovery deadline to permit the taking of plaintiff’s

deposition and requiring that plaintiff appear and participate in

a deposition by July 14, 2006. No opposition to this motion was

filed by plaintiff and plaintiff made no appearance at the

hearing on the motion. Defendants’ motion was granted by Order

filed on June 6, 2006. In addition, the June 6, 2006 Order

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 8
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

3

provided:

[A]s a result of Plaintiff’s failure to

appear at her properly noticed deposition on

March 20, 2006, Plaintiff is ordered to pay

sanctions in the amount of $636.50. 

Plaintiff is also informed by this order that

her failure to appear or participate in the

next scheduled deposition may result in

additional sanctions, including dismissal of

this case.

This Order was served on plaintiff by mail on June 6, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s deposition was noticed for July 10, 2006. The

Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition specifically stated:

“The failure of Plaintiff, ANGELA ENRIQUEZ, to attend and

cooperate in this deposition may result in court-ordered

sanctions which can include expenses of Defendants’ counsel or

dismissal of this action ....” According to the Declaration of

James M. Sobolewski, counsel for defendants, the Second Amended

Notice of Taking Deposition and another copy of the June 6, 2006

Order were served on plaintiff by mail on June 19, 2006. In

addition, by letter dated June 19, 2006, Mr. Sobolewski advised

plaintiff: “If you fail to appear at your scheduled deposition,

please be advised that I will immediately file a motion

requesting the court dismiss your lawsuit with prejudice due to

your refusal to submit to a deposition and comply with the

attached court order [the June 6, 2006 Order]”. Mr. Sobolewski

also requested that plaintiff send a check to his office in the

amount of $636.50. Mr. Sobolewski avers:

6. On Friday, July 7, 2006, I received a

voice mail from ‘Ibeth’. I returned the call

to the requested telephone number during the

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

afternoon and spoke with Ibeth. Ibeth

explained that she was niece of Angela

Enriquez, and indicated that her aunt had

received my correspondence of June 19, 2006. 

I advised Ibeth that Enriquez’s attendance at

the deposition on July 10, 2006, was

mandatory, and that the failure to Enriquez

to appear would result in a motion to dismiss

the complaint. Ibeth confirmed that her aunt

(Enriquez) would be present for the

deposition.

7. Enriquez did not appear for her scheduled

deposition on July 10, 2006. I did not

receive any communication from her on that

date regarding the deposition or requesting a

continuance.

8. I have not received any communication

from Enriquez or a representative or family

member of hers since July 10, 2006, regarding

the scheduled deposition or this litigation.

Defendants move for dismissal of this action as a sanction. 

Even though the docket establishes that plaintiff was properly

served, plaintiff did not file a written opposition to

defendants’ motion within the time required by Rule 78-230(c),

Local Rules of Practice and did not appear at oral argument on

October 30, 2006.

Rule 37(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in

pertinent part:

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,

and among others, the following:

...

(C) An order ... dismissing the 

action or proceeding or any part thereof ....

In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

addition thereto, the court shall require the

party failing to obey the order ... to pay

the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s

fees, caused by the failure, unless the court

finds that the failure was substantially

justified or that other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust.

“Where the drastic sanction[] of dismissal ... [is] imposed,

... the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party’s

noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault, or bad faith.” 

Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9 Cir.1997). th

Before dismissing an case for noncompliance

with court-ordered discovery under Rule 37,

the district court must weigh the following

five factors:

(1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court’s need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; (4)

the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of

less drastic sanctions.

Id. “‘Where a court order is violated, the first two factors

support sanctions and the fourth factor cuts against a default. 

Therefore, it is the third and fifth factors that are decisive.’” 

Id. 

Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for

dismissal of an action “[f]or failure of the plaintiff ... to

comply with ... any order of court ....” The standards

governing dismissal under Rule 41(b) are basically the same as

those applicable to Rule 37(b)(2). See Malone v. U.S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir.1987). th

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

The first, second and fourth factors, the public’s interest

in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to

manage its dockets, and the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits, weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff

has repeatedly and willfully failed to participate in a properly

noticed deposition. Her failure to do so, coupled with the

absence of any opposition to this motion, demonstrates her

abandonment of this action.

The third factor is the risk of prejudice to the defendants

because of plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for her noticed

deposition. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff

seeks damages on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her son’s

estate, including damages for wrongful death. Plaintiff’s

deposition is necessary to inquire into the relationship that

forms the basis for damages resulting from the loss of comfort,

society and affection of her son. Plaintiff’s deposition is

necessary to obtain information regarding other potential

claimants and funeral and burial expenses. Defendants have

retained consultants to evaluate plaintiff’s damages claims which

cannot be performed until plaintiff provides information

concerning those claims. Furthermore, defendants cannot proceed

with expert discovery or obtain an expert’s report for production

in the absence of plaintiff’s deposition. Questions regarding

the factual basis for the allegations of wrongdoing in the First

Amended Complaint must be explored at plaintiff’s deposition in

order to provide defendants’ counsel with information necessary

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

to analyze the strength of plaintiff’s claims and evaluate the

need for further proceedings. Finally, the delay in prosecuting

this action prejudices defendants. The events underlying

plaintiff’s claims occurred approximately three years ago and

this action was filed almost two years ago. Defendants face the

risk of fading memories and loss of evidence because of

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court orders and prosecute

this action. 

The fifth factor, the availability and adequacy of less

drastic sanctions, weighs in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has

already been sanctioned monetarily for her initial failure to

appear at the noticed deposition. Nonetheless, plaintiff failed

to appear at the re-noticed deposition despite warnings from the

Magistrate Judge and defendants’ counsel that dismissal of this

action was a possible sanction for her continued noncompliance. 

Although no contention is made by defendants that plaintiff

failed to pay the $636.50 monetary sanction, Mr. Collette

withdrew as plaintiff’s counsel because plaintiff was unable to

pay the costs of litigation pursuant to their fee arrangement

All five factors weigh in favor of dismissal as a sanction. 

The record set forth above demonstrates that plaintiff’s

continued failure to participate in her deposition

notwithstanding repeated warnings of additional sanctions is

deliberate and willful. 

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for failure to

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

comply with a discovery order is GRANTED and this action is

DISMISSED.

2. Defendants’ counsel is ordered to lodge a proposed

Judgment within five days of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06387-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 10/31/06 Page 8 of 8