Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06118/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06118-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WARD LITTLE

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANDARA THOMAS KINSEY; TODD

CURTIS; GARY KELLER; DOUGLAS

HAYS; JOHN McKNIGHT; LUIS LARA;

SETH JENNINGS; CALEB HEGGLAND;

SANDY MUSH; ADULT CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY; COUNTY OF MERCED; CITY

OF MERCED; and DOES 1 through

101, inclusive,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-cv-06118 OWW DLB 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

COUNTY OF MERCED, DOUGLAS

HAYS, JOHN McKNIGHT, AND

CALEB HEGGLAND’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R.

CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants COUNTY OF MERCED, DOUGLAS HAYS, JOHN McKNIGHT,

and CALEB HEGGLAND (“County Defendants”) move to dismiss

Plaintiff’s case as a discovery sanction pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). (Doc. 46) STEVEN WARD LITTLE

(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has not opposed the motion.

//

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 7
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 Plaintiff’s last known address of record is 4625 Esmar

Road, Ceres, California 95307.

2

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on August 18, 2003. (Doc. 1,

Compl.) Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of his claims

that (1) officials of the California Highway Patrol and the

County of Merced violated Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42

U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) Plaintiff’s first attorney committed legal

malpractice in his representation of Plaintiff in this matter. 

(See Doc. 1)

Plaintiff is now appearing pro se. His second attorney,

Terri L. Cipponeri of Curtis & Arata, was granted permission to

withdraw on January 26, 2005 on the basis that Plaintiff’s

failure to communicate with Ms. Cipponeri made it unreasonably

difficult for her to carry out her representation of Plaintiff. 

(Doc. 36, Order) Plaintiff was granted an additional 30 days

after service of the order to find new counsel and respond to

discovery requests outstanding since March 8, 2004. 

On April 11, 2005, Ms. Cipponeri filed two proofs of service

of the order granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

The first proof of service shows that personal service of the

order at Plaintiff’s last known address was attempted on February

12, 2005, February 17, 2005, and February 21, 2005.1 (Doc. 39) 

On February 12 and 17 there was no answer at the door. As to

February 21, the process server stated the following: “Spoke

with the subject’s mother. He is not around. She doesn’t know

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 7
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

where he is. She has not seen him for months.” The second proof

of service shows that Plaintiff’s mother, Mary Little, was served

with the following three documents on February 21, 2005: 

(1) Order granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for

reconsideration; (2) Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories

(originally served March 8, 2004); and (3) Defendants’ First

Request for Identification of Documents (originally served March

8, 2004). 

On February 14, 2005, the County Defendants served Plaintiff

with a first set of special interrogatories, although no proof of

service was provided by the County Defendants. Responses were

due on March 16, 2005. On March 31, 2005, after not having

received a response, the County Defendants’ counsel sent

Plaintiff a letter requesting he serve responses by April 7,

2005. Plaintiff never respond to the interrogatories or to the

letter. On April 13, 2005, the County Defendants filed a motion

to compel responses to the February 14, 2005 special

interrogatories. The motion was served on Plaintiff via United

States mail at his last known address. (Doc. 40, County Def.’s

Mot. to Compel) The motion was not returned. A hearing on the

motion was held before the magistrate judge on May 27, 2005. 

Counsel for Defendants appeared, but Plaintiff did not appear.

The Motion to Compel was granted by the magistrate judge on

May 31, 2005. (Doc. 44, Order Granting County Def.’s Mot. to

Compel) The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to provide

responses to Defendant’s February 14, 2005 special

interrogatories within ten (10) days of the date of service of

the order. Plaintiff was served with this order via United

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 7
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

States mail at his last known address on June 2, 2005. (Doc. 45,

Proof of Service of Order Granting Mot. to Compel) Responses

were due on June 16, 2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. The order was

not returened. Plaintiff has filed no responses to date. 

Plaintiff was also ordered to pay sanctions to the County

Defendants’ counsel in the amount of $300.00 by June 30, 2005. 

Plaintiff has not paid the sanctions to date. 

On June 20, 2005, the County Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to

obey an order to provide or permit discovery. (Doc. 46, County

Def.’s Mem.) Plaintiff was served with motion to dismiss via

United States mail at his last known address on June 20, 2005. 

(Id. at Proof of Service) It has not been returned. Oral

argument was heard on August 8, 2005. William J. Terrance, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of the County Defendants. Plaintiff did not

appear.

III. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) authorizes the

court to dismiss an action if a party fails to obey a court order

to provide discovery:

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 striking out pleadings or parts thereof,

or staying further proceedings until the order is

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or

any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by

default against the disobedient party....

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added).

The sanction of dismissal is considered a drastic remedy,

however, and should only be applied if the party’s conduct rises

to the level of willfulness or bad faith. Fjelstad v. Amer.

Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Disobedient conduct within the control of the litigant is

sufficient to demonstrate willfulness, fault, or bad faith. Id.

at 1341. Furthermore, “[b]ecause the sanction of dismissal is

such a harsh penalty, the district court must weigh five factors

before imposing dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

manage its dockets; (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.” Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732, 733 (9th Cir.

1991) (quotations and citations omitted). “The first two of

these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases,

while the fourth cuts against a...dismissal sanction. Thus the

key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser

sanctions.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948

(9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656

(9th Cir. 1990)).

This case was filed almost two years ago. No discovery has

been conducted. This case rests solely on Plaintiff’s

unsupported allegations. No one seems to know Plaintiff’s

whereabouts, not even his own mother. Plaintiff has filed no

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

change of address with the Court, as is required by the Local

Rules for the Eastern District of California. Papers relating to

this case, including discovery requests and the magistrate

judge’s order granting the County Defendants’ motion to compel,

have been served on Plaintiff at his last known address. None

have been returned. Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery

requests as is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California. 

Plaintiff has also disobeyed a court order to respond to

discovery requests. Plaintiff has done absolutely nothing to

prosecute this case. To the contrary, he has demonstrated a

willful failure to respond to his former attorneys, or his

mother, or the numerous requests for discovery.

The risk of prejudice to the County Defendants if this case

were not dismissed is high. They will continue to have to pay

legal fees to prosecute a non-case against them, a case which the

Plaintiff himself has demonstrated no interest in prosecuting. 

Any risk of prejudice to plaintiff is self-inflicted. The risk

of such prejudice does not outweigh the harm to Defendants that

would result were this case to continue. There is no alternative

sanction that would be effective, since Plaintiff continues to

fail and refuse to respond. Monetary sanctions have gone

unheeded. The interests of justice in the prompt and fair

disposition of cases and in clearing its docket are also served

by dismissal.

For all the foregoing reasons, the County Defendants’ motion

to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety for failure to comply

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

with court orders regarding discovery and for failure to

prosecute.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 15, 2005. 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 57 Filed 08/15/05 Page 7 of 7