Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05108-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 63)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SERVE F&R ON PLAINTIFF BY CERTIFIED

MAIL

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former 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

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 12, 2003, against defendant Vigil (“defendant”) for

violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. (Doc. 15.) 

On March 27, 2006, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to notify defendant’s counsel

whether or not he needed a Spanish-English interpreter for his deposition within thirty days from the

date of service of the order. (Doc. 62.) On May 1, 2006, defendant filed a motion to dismiss based

on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b).

(Docs. 63, 64.) On May 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he needs an interpreter and on

June 19, 2006, in compliance with the court’s order of May 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to

defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Docs. 65, 67, 71.)

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/07/06 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

2

Defendant moves for dismissal of this action on the ground that plaintiff failed to notify him

within thirty days whether or not plaintiff needed an interpreter, as required by the court in its order

of March 27, 2006. In his opposition, plaintiff contends that he received the court’s order on April

20, 2006, and responded on May 17, 2006, within the thirty-day time period.

“Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are imposed . . . the losing party’s noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d

943, 946 (9th Cir. 1993); Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.

1985). “[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is all that is

required to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Henry, 983 F.2d at 948 (quoting Fjelstad,

762 F.2d at 1341.) To determine whether to impose a severe sanction of dismissal or default, a court

considers:

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 party seeking sanctions;

4. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

5. The availability of less drastic sanctions.

Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); In re Exxon

Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996); Henry, 983 F.2d at 948; United States v. Kahaluu Constr.

Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829, 107 S.Ct. 112 (1986). “What is most

critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is

whether the discovery violations ‘threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.’” Valley

Engineers, 158 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Adriana International Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1019 (1991)).

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that the court’s order, which was served by mail on March

27, 2006, was not received by him until April 20, 2006, more than three weeks after it was served

by mail. (Doc. 69, p. 33.) Pursuant to the court’s order of March 27, 2006, plaintiff’s response was

due within thirty days from the date of service by mail rather than thirty days from the date of receipt

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/07/06 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

1

 Thirty days from the date of service of the order means thirty days from the date the court placed the order

in the mail (e.g., the date on the proof of service attached to the order).

2

 Despite plaintiff’s assertion to the contrary, when the time period is more than ten days, weekends and

holidays are included in the count. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). If the due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the next

business day becomes the due date. Id.

3

of the order by plaintiff.1 Thus, plaintiff’s response was due on or before May 1, 2006.2 Fed. R. Civ.

P. 6(a), (e). Because plaintiff received the order on April 20, 2006, he had time to respond to the

order by the May 1 deadline. However, due to plaintiff’s misunderstanding concerning how to

calculate the due date, he believed his response served on May 17, 2006 was timely.

Although plaintiff failed to timely obey the court’s order by serving a response within thirty

days, his failure to do so stemmed from his misunderstanding of how to calculate the thirty-day time

period within which he was to respond. Additional complicating factors are plaintiff’s difficulties

comprehending English and lack of speedy mail delivery, an issue not usually encountered by the

court. Although plaintiff’s filings are received by the court within a few days, plaintiff has submitted

evidence supporting his contention that he did not receive the order until more than three weeks later.

Under these circumstances, the severe sanction of dismissal is not warranted. Plaintiff has not

ceased to prosecute this action and there is no evidence in the record that plaintiff intentionally

flouted the court’s order. Rather, plaintiff’s tardy response appears to be purely the result of his

misunderstanding of the deadline and of delayed delivery of the court’s order. In order to avoid any

confusion in the future, the court will set deadlines by date rather than by time period. 

Defendant has been attempting to depose plaintiff for more than a year. Defendant has a right

to take plaintiff’s deposition in this action and plaintiff may not evade being deposed. Therefore,

in a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations, the court shall set

plaintiff’s deposition. Absent leave of court or a modification of the arrangement made with

defendant’s counsel, plaintiff is required to appear at his deposition and sanctions will be imposed

if he fails to do so.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motion to dismiss as a

sanction, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) on May 1, 2006, be DENIED, 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/07/06 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

4

without prejudice. The Clerk’s Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to serve this Findings and

Recommendations on plaintiff by certified mail.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The parties may file

written objections to the Findings and Recommendations with the court. Objections, if any, are due

on or before August 11, 2006. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 4