Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06118/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06118-4/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 KENSEY; 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

KENSEY, CURTIS, KELLER,

LARA, AND JENNINGS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.

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

Defendants SHANDRA THOMAS KENSEY, TODD CURTIS, GARY KELLER,

LUIS LARA, and SETH JENNINGS (“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.

Oral argument was set for October 3, 2005, although no party

appeared. The matter was submitted on the papers.

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

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

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 68 Filed 10/05/05 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

27

28

2

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)

On August 15, 2005, this case was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

in its entirety for failure to comply with court orders regarding

discovery and for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 57, Order 6-7

(emphasis in original)) This order issued in response to the

motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) filed

by the COUNTY OF MERCED, DOUGLAS HAYS, JOHN McKNIGHT, and CALEB

HEGGLAND, who are referred to as the “County Defendants.” The

remaining Defendants in this case, SHANDRA THOMAS KENSEY, TODD

CURTIS, GARY KELLER, LUIS LARA, and SETH JENNINGS (“Defendants”),

now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against them pursuant

to the same Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 61, Defs.’

Mem.)

Defendants’ arguments are essentially identical to the

arguments made in support of the earlier motion filed by the

County Defendants. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s case should

be dismissed for failure to provide discovery and for failure to

obey a court order. Defendants argue that: (1) Plaintiff failed

to obey the January 26, 2005 district court order to respond to

written discovery requests no later than February 23, 2005 (Doc.

36, Order, filed January 27, 2005); (2) Plaintiff failed to obey

the magistrate judge’s order to respond to discovery within ten

(10) days of service of the order (Doc. 55, Order, filed August

1, 2005); (3) Plaintiff failed to obey the magistrate judge’s

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 68 Filed 10/05/05 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

27

28

3

order to pay sanctions to Defendants’ counsel in the amount of

$417.00 on or before August 31, 2005 (id.). Other factual

allegations relating to the procedural and factual background of

this case are addressed in the January 2005 Order (Doc. 36) and

the August 2005 Order (Doc. 57).

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

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).

For all reasons stated in the August 2005 Order (Doc. 57),

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety as

to all defendants for failure to comply with court orders

regarding discovery and for failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October _5__, 2005. 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06118-OWW -DLB Document 68 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 3