Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01833/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01833-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GATHRIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1833 DFL CMK

vs.

T.L. ROSARIO, et al., ORDER &

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the court are the defendants’

motion to dismiss, motion to compel, and request for sanctions, all filed February 3, 2005. To

date, the plaintiff has not filed an opposition to any of these motions. 

I. BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended civil rights complaint. 

Defendants filed their answers on October 8, 2003 and December 9, 2003. (See Court Docket.)

On October 15, 2003, the court issued its discovery order which included

permission to depose the plaintiff pursuant to rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The court warned that any discovery disputes shall be resolved pursuant to Rules 5,

7, 11, 26, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

2

United States District Court, Eastern District of California, except for Local Rule 37-251. (Court

Docket Entry No. 27.)

The Court issued a scheduling order setting the following dates: the deadline for

completing discovery was November 5, 2004; and the deadline for pretrial motions was January

3, 2005. (Court Docket Entry No. 40.) 

Defendants noticed plaintiff’s deposition for September 22, 2004, at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). On September 21, 2004, defense counsel received a telephone

call from the plaintiff in which he was told that the plaintiff had been transferred to Atascadero

State Hospital (“ASH”). On October 20, 2004, defendants noticed plaintiff’s deposition for

November 3, 2004, in ASH. On October 25, 2004, defense counsel was again told that plaintiff

had been transferred, this time to California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). On October

26, 2004, defendant noticed plaintiff’s deposition for November 3, 2004 at CSP-Sac. However,

on November 1, 2004, defense counsel was told by the litigation coordinator’s office at CSP-Sac

that he had been transferred again. Defense counsel was also told that this was a temporary legal

transfer and that plaintiff was scheduled to return to CSP-Sac in late November. (Declaration of

Benjamin T. Rice, ¶ 4.) Defense counsel asked and received from the court a thirty day

extension of time to move the discovery deadline with the intention of deposing plaintiff late in

November. (Rice Declaration, ¶ 5.) 

On or about November 22, 2004, defense counsel received a notice of change of

address from plaintiff stating that he was now back at CSP-Sacramento. As a result, defendants

prepared to proceed with the deposition. On or about November 23, 2004, defense counsel was

informed by officials at CSP-Sacramento that he was still being kept at SVSP for court hearings. 

Subsequently, defense counsel noticed that plaintiff’s change of address to CSP-Sacramento was

sent from SVSP. (Rice Declaration, ¶ 6.)

Defendants subsequently asked the court to move the deadlines to complete the

discovery and file dispositive motions to February 5, 2005 and April 3, 2005, respectively. The

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

3

court granted this request. On December 8, 2004, defendants attorney re-noticed plaintiff’s

deposition for December 16, 2005, at SVSP. (Rice Declaration, ¶ 7; Ex. A, Re-Notice of

Deposition.) 

Defense counsel traveled to Salinas in order to depose the plaintiff on December

15, 2004. (Rice Declaration, ¶ 8.) However, Correctional Officer Dominguez informed defense

counsel that the plaintiff had refused to come out of his cell for Floor Officer S. Watson. (Id.;

Ex. B, Deposition Transcript.) Defense counsel also asked Officer Dominguez to personally ask

the plaintiff to come out of his cell for the deposition. Again, defense counsel was informed that

plaintiff would not come out of his cell. Defense counsel then asked the court reporter to go on

record and explained the circumstances of plaintiff’s refusal to come out of his cell. Defense

counsel also asked Officer Dominguez to set forth the events on the record. (Id.) 

Defense counsel spent at least six hours preparing for the deposition, drafting the

notice of taking the deposition, and at least three hours writing this motion and preparing

supplemental documentation, and approximately eight hours traveling to and from SVSP. The

total time spent in preparation for the deposition was seventeen hours. The California State

Attorney General’s Office bills at a rate of $112.00 per hour for time expended on behalf of

clients whom by law can be billed. The total amount of attorney’s fees for the deposition is

$1,904. (Rice Declaration, ¶ 9.)

Additionally, defense counsel’s travel expenses from Sacramento to San Quentin

totaled $168.26 and the court reporting costs totaled $189. (Id.) 

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants’ move this court to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as a

sanction imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal, however, is so harsh a penalty it

should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.” Thompson v. Housing

Authority of the City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Raiford v. Pounds, 640 F.2d 944, 945 (9th Cir.

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

4

1981) (per curiam); Industrial Bldg. Materials, Inc. V. Interchemical Corp., 437 F.2d 1336, 1339

(9th Cir. 1970). Dismissal is properly imposed where the losing party’s non-compliance was due

to willfulness, fault or bad faith. Sigliano v. Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 310 (9th Cir. 1981). For

example, if a party repeatedly fails to comply with court orders then the sanction of dismissal is

warranted. Id.

Here, the plaintiff refused to come out of his cell to attend his deposition. 

Plaintiff previously moved several times between prisons, further frustrating the discovery

process. Plaintiff has provided no justification for his failure to appear at his noticed deposition

or his prison transfers. However, the evidence is unclear on whether plaintiff’s failure to appear

is due to willfulness or his inability as a pro se litigant to understand his discovery

responsibilities. See, e.g., Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et

Commerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) (explaining that due process prohibits sanctioning

a party, whose failure to comply with court order regarding discovery was due to inability and not

willfulness, with the ultimate sanction of dismissal). Significant to the court is the fact that

plaintiff only refused one scheduled deposition. Therefore, at the present time, the court will

recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL

In the alternative, defendants move this court to compel the plaintiff’s attendance

at his deposition. Again, the plaintiff has not filed any opposition to defendants’ motion to

compel. The undersigned has the authority under L.R. 72-302(c)(1), to order plaintiff to be

deposed. Therefore, pursuant to the Local Rules, this court will order the plaintiff to cooperate

with the defendants in the taking of his deposition and grant defendants’ motion to compel. 

Another failure, by the plaintiff, to cooperate in the taking of his deposition will result in a

dismissal of this action. 

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

5

IV. REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS (SANCTIONS)

Finally, defendants ask this court to award them reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). The trial court has broad discretionary

powers to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b). See Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1050

(9th Cir. 1981). 

As a result, the court finds that defendants’ request for sanctions is perfunctory

under the current circumstances. The plaintiff may have misunderstood his rights regarding

appearance at his deposition in front of defendants’ attorney. Moreover, the plaintiff is an inmate

at California State Prison Sacramento. There is no evidence that plaintiff has the assets with

which to pay costs and attorney’s fees. Although, the plaintiff did pay his filing fee, it is doubtful

that the plaintiff will earn enough in prison to pay the $1,904 in attorney’s fees, not to mention

the costs estimated by defendants. Even though plaintiff’s inability to pay should not be the sole

reason for the court’s denial of monetary of sanctions, it can be considered as one factor. Warren

v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994). The court will be more inclined to award

defendants reasonable expenses in the future if the plaintiff continues to refuse to be deposed and

disobeys this court’s present order. Thus, the court will deny without prejudice, defendants’

motion for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.

V. CONCLUSION

 Defendants have announced their intention to file a motion for summary 

judgment if their motion to dismiss is denied. Defendants argue that they have been unable to

file their planned motion for summary judgment because of plaintiff’s refusal to participate in his

deposition. As a result, the court will vacate the upcoming trial date scheduled for July 11, 2005

and reset the deadlines for pretrial motions. Discovery will be formally closed with the exception

of plaintiff’s deposition.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

6

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel, filed February 3, 2005, is granted;

2. Defendants’ request for sanctions, filed February 3, 2005, is denied without

prejudice; 

3. Discovery is formally closed with the sole exception that the defendants have

until and including the date of July 1, 2005, to depose the plaintiff;

4. The date to file pre-trial motions shall be extended to and including August 1,

2005; and

5. The trial date currently set for Monday, July 11, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in front of

Chief Judge David F. Levi, is hereby vacated. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

defendants motion to dismiss, filed February 3, 2005, be denied without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fifteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 24, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 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

7

Case 2:02-cv-01833-DFL-CMK Document 59 Filed 05/25/05 Page 7 of 7