Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02449/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02449-37/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAHLEEM TINDLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF DALY CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02449-HSG

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: SAHLEEM 

TINDLE’S REPEATED FAILURE TO 

APPEAR FOR HIS DEPOSITION, AND 

DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 196

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation regarding 

Plaintiff Sahleem Tindle’s repeated failure to appear for his deposition, as well as the objections of

Plaintiff Yolanda Banks-Reed and the reply of Defendants City of Daly City, Officer Shane Hart, 

and Officer Mario Busalacchi (together, “Defendants”). See Docket Nos. 196, 200 & 202. The 

Court finds the report to be well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. Accordingly, the Court adopts 

the report’s recommendation that Mr. Tindle’s claims be dismissed as a sanction for failure to 

prosecute. Because no federal claim remains in the case after the dismissal of Mr. Tindle’s claims, 

the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiffs Yolanda 

Banks-Reed, Kevin Reed, minor R.R., Ciara Turner and minor I.T. (together, “Remaining 

Plaintiffs”), and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

I. THE COURT IS NOT PERSUADED BY THE OBJECTION TO THE REPORT

Mr. Tindle did not object to the report, and the objection filed by Ms. Banks-Reed is not 

persuasive. Without citing the record, Ms. Banks-Reed contends that Defendants have exploited 

Tindle’s alleged Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) “by repeatedly postponing . . . 

[Tindle’s] depositions and then rescheduling them for a later date.” See Dkt. No. 200 (original 

emphasis). This claim simply is not consistent with the long record in this case: Judge Ryu’s 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 203 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

report and the underlying docket detail the repeated instances on which Mr. Tindle failed to appear 

for his deposition, in violation of multiple orders of the Court. See Docket No. 196. Moreover, 

Mr. Tindle has submitted no medical documentation that he suffers from PTSD, despite multiple

warnings from the Court that he must do so if he claims that his condition prevented him from 

appearing for his deposition. See Dkt. No. 196, at 2:5-6 (citing Dkt. No. 116); id., at 3:14-17 

(citing Dkt. No. 164); id., at 4:16-17. In light of Judge Ryu’s extraordinarily patient and fair 

approach, which gave Mr. Tindle repeated opportunities over a period of nearly a year to 

substantiate this claim, the Court is not persuaded by Ms. Banks-Reed’s current assertion that “we 

are attempting to obtain the complete and most comprehensive medical records” relating to 

Tindle’s alleged diagnosis. See Dkt. No. 200. As early as December 11, 2015, Plaintiffs declined 

to submit the mental health assessment at Judge Ryu’s invitation, and instead stated that Mr. 

Tindle would appear for his deposition. See Dkt. No. 196, at 2:7-8 (citing Dkt. No. 120). 

Considering the ample opportunities Mr. Tindle has been given to substantiate any claim 

regarding his condition, and his repeated noncompliance with Court orders, the Court agrees with 

Judge Ryu that dismissal of his claims is fair and appropriate. 

In addition, Ms. Banks-Reed argues that “ALL the other plaintiffs have been at all relevant 

times ready, willing, and available to continue moving forward.” Dkt. No 200. But this has been 

another recurring problem in the case: as Judge Ryu has ordered, Defendants are entitled to take 

Mr. Tindle’s pivotal deposition first, and are not required to defer to Plaintiffs’ preferred order of 

proceeding. Dkt. No. 155 at 4. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that they should be allowed to 

sequence the depositions as they choose, rather than follow Judge Ryu’s orders. The Court 

obviously disagrees: Mr. Tindle’s failure to comply with Judge Ryu’s repeated orders has 

unacceptably delayed this case and made an orderly and timely resolution of the claims 

impossible. Plaintiffs’ preference to have other witnesses deposed before Mr. Tindle in no way 

mitigates these facts.

Accordingly, the Court accepts Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation, and DISMISSES 

Mr. Tindle’s claims. 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 203 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. THE COURT DECLINES SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE 

LAW CLAIMS OF THE REMAINING PLAINTIFFS

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all 

claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford v. MemberWorks, 

Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are 

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction 

doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to 

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. at 561 (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

The Court has dismissed Mr. Tindle’s claims, including his section 1983 claim (which was 

the sole federal claim in this case). The Court thus lacks original jurisdiction over the claims of

the remaining Plaintiffs, who allege only state tort claims. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 56-58

(alleging claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress). The Court declines in its discretion 

to assert supplemental jurisdiction over these purely state law claims and dismisses them without 

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford, 625 F.3d at 561 (holding that district court acted 

within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law 

claims after granting motion to dismiss all federal claims).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above and in Judge Ryu’s Report and Recommendation, the Court 

DISMISSES the claims of Plaintiff Sahleem Tindle for failure to prosecute. The Court declines 

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims of Plaintiffs Yolanda Banks-Reed, 

Kevin Reed, minor R.R., Ciara Turner, and minor I.T., and DISMISSES those claims without 

prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/17/2016

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 203 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 3