Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-07-00195 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 10, 2007. On February 23, 2007, Judge Chesney

referred this case to this Court for all discovery purposes. On September 20, 2007, Defendants filed

a motion to compel discovery, which the Court granted on October 26, 2007. The Court ordered

Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendants’ discovery requests and initial disclosures no later than

November 30, 2007. 

On December 19, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff

failed to serve any discovery or disclosures in violation of the Court’s October 26, 2007 Order. 

Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion for sanctions, and he did not appear at the February 5, 2008

hearing. In the motion for sanctions, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, or in the

alternative, evidentiary and monetary sanctions based on one failure to respond to discovery and one

failure to comply with a court order. 

A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case as a

sanction: (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

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Payne v.

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 64 Filed 02/06/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 5080 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is an extreme sanction to be imposed in

cases where the violations of court orders were willful, in bad faith or the fault of the party. See

United States v. Kahaluu Construction Co., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the first

three factors weigh in favor of dismissal, the fourth and fifth factors weigh against dismissal,

presenting a close question. Dismissal, or at least evidentiary sanctions, may well be warranted,

particularly if Plaintiff fails to comply with this or future court orders. The Court understands

Defendants’ frustration with Plaintiff’s lack of participation in this case, and is mindful that trial is

set in this case for June 2, 2008. However, since dismissal or the equivalent through issue

preclusion are extreme sanctions, the Court will give Plaintiff one more chance to prosecute this

case. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why this Court should not recommend

that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with Court discovery orders and failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The show cause hearing is scheduled for

February 19, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California. Further, Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s October 26, 2007 discovery

order no later than February 19, 2008, and shall provide proof of that compliance at the February 19,

2008 hearing. Any unexcused failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation by

the Court for severe sanctions, up to and including dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 64 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2