Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01956/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01956-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Ronnie Brown,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-1956 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

R. E. Early, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this

civil rights action. Defendants move to dismiss upon the ground

that while out of prison plaintiff failed to appear for a

properly noticed deposition. Plaintiff opposes.

February 8, 2005, defendants duly served upon plaintiff

notice to appear for deposition at the Attorney General’s office

in Sacramento at 9:00 a.m., February 23, 2005. February 22,

2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order stating:

Plaintiff proceeding In Pro Se and without counsel 

Case 2:02-cv-01956-FCD-PAN Document 57 Filed 06/08/05 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

2

objects to defendant’s request for deposition Feb 23,

2004 at Sacramento. Plaintiff cannot participate in

such order of request without assistance. Plaintiff

does not drive and/or able to travel 425 [miles] sic by

doctor’s order’s [sic] and inability to travel. 

Defendant’s [sic] hasn’t [sic] complied with the order

of this court dated February 8, 2005 but not stamped

filed.

February 22, 2005, plaintiff and counsel for defendants

spoke over the telephone and plaintiff informed counsel he

planned to appear for the deposition, was trying to obtain

permission from his parole officer to travel and asked the

deposition convene later than 9:00 a.m.. Counsel called

plaintiff’s residence later that day and left a message stating

he could change the time for the deposition to 10:00 a.m. but no

later because counsel had other matters scheduled. Counsel

requested plaintiff return the call but plaintiff did not.

Counsel spent three hours preparing for plaintiff’s deposition.

Plaintiff did not appear for deposition. Around 9:30 a.m.,

February 23, plaintiff was arrested for violation of his parole. 

Counsel for defendants learned of plaintiff’s arrest around 10:45

a.m. The court reporter charged an appearance fee of $150.

A party may take another party’s duly noticed deposition in

person as a matter of right. Fed. R Civ. P. 30. If the party to

be examined fails to appear after being served with a proper

notice of deposition, the court may make such orders concerning

the failure as are just, including dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C). 

It may not be said that plaintiff’s failure to appear for

Case 2:02-cv-01956-FCD-PAN Document 57 Filed 06/08/05 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

3

his deposition was wilful and accordingly dismissal of his action

for his default is not warranted and defendants’ March 10, 2005,

motion is denied. 

Defendants may notice plaintiff’s deposition again for a

reasonable time and place. If plaintiff wilfully fails to appear

pursuant to due notice or serve and file a timely motion for a

protective order, the court will upon duly noticed motion impose

severe sanctions which, in light of the unavailability of other

sanctions, likely may be dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. 

So ordered.

Dated: June 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01956-FCD-PAN Document 57 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 3