Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01846/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01846-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John M. Carnes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Officers Salvino, Oskins, and Sonier,

Officers of the Mohave County Sheriff’s

Department; Mohave County, an Arizona

Municipal Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-1846-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for

Lack of Prosecution and Request for Sanctions (Dkt. # 77). For the reasons stated below the

Motion will be granted and the Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

As has been set forth in Defendants’ Motion, and is confirmed by a review of the

docket, Plaintiff has completely failed to participate in the orderly disposition of his own

complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an initial disclosure statement, he did not participate in

drafting a joint case management report, nor did he appear at the case management

conference. Plaintiff has not responded to interrogatories drafted by the Defendants, and

Plaintiff also failed to appear for his deposition as noticed by the Defendants. Plaintiff has,

however, asked for extensions of time to accomplish service and has further requested a stay

of the ongoing litigation until Plaintiff felt himself to be in better physical and mental

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 82 Filed 05/10/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

condition. Although Plaintiff did receive extensions and the ability to proceed in forma

pauperis, Plaintiff was not granted a stay in this matter pending his restoration to better

health. He filed an interlocutory appeal on this denial, and that appeal was dismissed by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a February disposition. 

Other than filing requests that the Court oblige the Defendants to make him better

settlement offers, the Plaintiff has not otherwise participated in this litigation. The time set

forth for discovery in the Case Management Order has now passed. In short, Defendant’s

order requesting a dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims due to Plaintiff’s failure to appropriately

participate in this action is well taken. 

Before dismissing an action as a sanction for failure to comply with the rules, the

Court must consider five separate 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 the disposition of cases on their merits; and 5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994).

While Plaintiff obviously feels that he has legitimate claims against the Defendants,

he has done nothing to allow them to fairly discover the version of the facts on which he

bases his claims. Similarly Plaintiff has done nothing to discover or learn the basis of the

Defenses raised by those against whom he has made his claims. The legal system requires

that all parties to a lawsuit provide their opponents with a fair opportunity to discover the

facts on which they base their claims or defenses. It has set up certain procedures to allow

both sides to discover this information. It is true that Plaintiff is under no obligation to

conduct discovery with respect to his opponents’ defenses, but he has also completely failed

to follow the procedures in allowing the Defendants to discover the facts on which he bases

his claims against them until after the discovery deadline in this action has passed. Thus,

factors one through three all favor dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Factor four, which favors

resolving actions on their merits, cannot outweigh all of the other factors in cases similar to

the one here, where Plaintiff has complied with absolutely none of his discovery obligations.

With respect to factor five, the Court may, in circumstances such as this, impose a

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 82 Filed 05/10/10 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

27

28

- 3 -

dismissal without prejudice to the reassertion of Plaintiff’s claims. Such a dismissal, being

less drastic than a dismissal with prejudice, is therefore a less drastic alternative that still

provides a just sanction. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. # 77), to the extent

that it requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. It denies the balance of

Defendants’ request for sanctions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for An Order of Reasonable

Offer to Settle Upon Defendants (Dkt. # 81) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court terminate this matter.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 82 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 3