Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03986/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3986

___________

Beck, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Joan Fabian, as the Commissioner of *

Corrections for the State of Minnesota; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lynn Dingle, as the Warden of the *

Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak *

Park Heights; Leie Stevenson, as *

Program Director at the Minnesota *

Correctional Facility - Oak Park *

Heights; Dr. Stephen Craane, of *

Correctional Medical Services, Inc.; *

Kathy Reid, R.N., of Correctional *

Medical Services, Inc.; Mark Ehlenz, *

Lt., of the Minnesota Correctional *

Facility - Oak Park Heights, and; *

Denise Ehlenz, of Minnesota *

Correctional Industries, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2007

Filed: October 12, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 06-3986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361267
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jeanne

Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Beck, a Minnesota prisoner, appeals the district court’s1

 Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a

discovery order. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Beck’s complaint. See Hairston v. Alert Safety Light Products, Inc., 307

F.3d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for Rule 37 dismissals); Schoffstall

v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (under Rule 37, if party fails to

comply with court order regarding discovery, court may dismiss action as sanction).

The uncontroverted facts show that Beck willfully refused to comply with a

court order to compel discovery. See Keefer v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 238

F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2000) (sanction of dismissal appropriate only when party

willfully violated court order for discovery to prejudice of adverse party); Farnsworth

v. Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are

not excused from complying with court orders). In addition, Beck’s disparaging

remarks about defendants’ counsel and the magistrate judge tended to demonstrate

willful misconduct and bad faith. See Hairston, 307 F.3d at 719 (court should use

dismissal as sanction only “when the ‘failure to comply has been due to willfulness,

bad faith, or any fault of petitioner’”); Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1207

(8th Cir. 1983) (dismissal with prejudice is extreme sanction only to be used in cases

of willful disobedience or bad faith). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361267