Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01671-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL WALKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1671 GEB KJM P

vs.

K. CLEMENT, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three matters are before the court.

1. Plaintiff’s December 4, 2006 Motion For Sanctions

Plaintiff asks that defendants be sanctioned for failing to timely comply with this

court’s October 31, 2006 order. In light of defendants’ opposition to the motion, which indicates

defendants did not actually receive the court’s October 2006 order until they received plaintiff’s

sanctions motion, the court does not find cause for sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 63 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2. Defendants’ January 26, 2007 Motion To Dismiss

On October 31, 2006 the court ordered defendants to turn over to plaintiff certain

documents the court had reviewed in camera. Plaintiff was ordered with respect to the

documents, in pertinent part:

Plaintiff shall not divulge the contents of any of these documents

except to: (a) the court, court personnel, and stenographic

reporters engaged in proceedings as are directly related to

preparation for trial in this action; and (b) witnesses during or in

preparation for a deposition taken in this matter otherwise during

the preparation for trial and trial. . .

Plaintiff shall not make copies of the confidential material

produced as ordered above except as necessary for purposes of this

litigation.

In their January 26, 2007 motion to dismiss, defendants argue and present

evidence indicating that plaintiff violated the terms of the October 31, 2006 order by, among

other things, sending copies of documents protected by the order to an attorney representing

plaintiff in a separate criminal matter. In his opposition to the motion, plaintiff admits

forwarding copies of the documents to the criminal defense attorney identified by defendants. 

Opp’n at 7-9. Plaintiff attempts to justify his actions by pointing to the language in a proposed

order that was not signed and by protesting that his communications with the defense attorney

should be kept confidential. Plaintiff’s finagling notwithstanding, the court’s instructions were

clear. The record also is clear that plaintiff willfully violated the court’s order.

Defendants ask that this action be dismissed. “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of

the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

“In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the district

court must weigh five factors including: ‘(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

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 63 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 5
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

drastic alternatives.’” Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The court has considered all of the above factors. Factor (1) does not weigh in

favor or against dismissal in this instance. Factor (2) weighs in favor of dismissal, because

plaintiff’s readiness to disobey a court order undermines the court’s ability to manage the docket

in this case. Factor (3) also weighs in favor of dismissal because defendants will be prejudiced,

as they assert, by litigating a case against a party that believes it is acceptable to not play by the

rules. Of course, factor (4) always weighs against dismissal. With regard to factor (5), 

evidentiary sanctions, such as a jury instruction concerning plaintiff’s conduct, are not certain to

be effective because plaintiff’s violation of a protective order covering documents that may or

may not be relevant to the issues ultimately addressed at trial does not necessarily imply anything

to a trier of fact. Crafting such an instruction would be a challenge in itself, if the trial court

continued to approve protections for the sensitive information contained in the documents

covered by the October 31 order. While such an instruction might reflect poorly on plaintiff’s

credibility, the trier of fact already will have cause to question plaintiff’s credibility by virtue of

the fact that he is in prison. A sanction limiting discovery in some manner would not be

appropriate because discovery is complete. A large fine might be a less drastic alternative to

dismissal but that is not practical here because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma

pauperis. In light of all of the circumstances related to defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s conduct

demands a stiff penalty; the only sanction practically available to the court befitting plaintiff’s

deliberate misconduct is dismissal. 

Therefore, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff also

will be ordered to return to defendants all materials provided to plaintiff by defendants pursuant

to the court’s October 31, 2006 order and any copies plaintiff made of the materials, to the extent

such materials are still in his possession, custody or control. Within five days of service of this

order, plaintiff shall provide defendants with an affidavit certifying under penalty of perjury that

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 63 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 5
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

he has complied with the above.

Plaintiff’s criminal lawyer, Tom Clute, will be served a copy of this order. Mr.

Clute will be ordered to turn over to defendants, within five days, all copies of any materials

covered by the October 31, 2006 order in his possession, custody or control.

3. Plaintiff’s January 31, 2007 Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

In this motion, plaintiff apparently seeks the return of documents originally

provided to him by defendants pursuant to the court’s October 31, 2006 order; defendants

subsequently retrieved the documents and sequestered them pending resolution of their pending

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff no longer needs the documents for purposes of this action, and the

court has determined the documents should be permanently returned to defendants, because

plaintiff has shown he will not abide by the order of the court concerning the manner in which

plaintiff may use, possess and disseminate the materials. His motion should be denied. 

4. Plaintiff’s July 17, 2007 Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because

defendants’ motion is properly filed and should be granted, plaintiff’s motion should be

dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 4, 2006 motion for sanctions is denied.

2. Within five days of service of this order, plaintiff shall surrender to defendants,

or their designee, all materials provided to him by defendants pursuant to the court’s October 31,

2006 protective order and any copies plaintiff made of the materials. Plaintiff shall provide

defendants with an affidavit signed under the penalty of perjury indicating plaintiff has returned

to defendants all materials provided to plaintiff pursuant to the court’s October 31, 2006 order

along with any copies in plaintiff’s possession, custody or control.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Tom Clute,

2611 Esplanade, Chico, CA, 95973.

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 63 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 5
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

4. Within five days of service of this order, Mr. Clute shall return to defendants,

or their designee, any materials in Mr. Clute’s possession, custody or control that are covered by

this court’s October 31, 2006 order along with any copies of the material made by Mr. Clute.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ January 26, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted.

2. Plaintiff’s January 31, 2007 motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

3. Plaintiff’s July 17, 2007 motion to dismiss be denied.

4. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 6, 2007.

1

walk1671.57

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 63 Filed 08/06/07 Page 5 of 5