Court Opinion

ID: 9352167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 16:00:18.25264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:18.072983
License: Public Domain

22-638-pr
     Houghtaling v. Fischer

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                      SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 5th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               ROBERT D. SACK,
 7               ALISON J. NATHAN,
 8               SARAH A. L. MERRIAM,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   Jeffrey Blane Houghtaling,
13
14                             Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16                      v.                                                 22-638
17
18   Deborah Eaton, Senior C.C. Gowanda,
19
20                             Defendant-Appellee,
21
22   Brian Fischer, Comm. of DOCS, Debra Eaton,
23   Dale Artus,
24
25                     Defendants.
26   _____________________________________
27
28
29
30   FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                              Jeffrey Blane Houghtaling, pro se,
31                                                         Rochester, NY.
32
 1   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                                     Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
 2                                                               General, Jeffrey W. Lang, Deputy
 3                                                               Solicitor General, Sean P. Mix,
 4                                                               Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel,
 5                                                               for Letitia James, Attorney General for
 6                                                               the State of New York, Albany, NY.
 7

 8          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New

 9   York (Wolford, J., Pedersen, M.J.).

10          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

11   DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

12          Appellant Jeffrey Houghtaling, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

13   § 1983 complaint under Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

14   failure to comply with discovery orders after Houghtaling twice ignored orders directing him to

15   respond to the defendant’s interrogatories and discovery demands. The court also awarded

16   attorney’s fees to the defendant-appellee as a related discovery sanction. We assume the parties’

17   familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 1

18          We review dismissals under Rules 37 and 41(b) for abuse of discretion, remaining mindful

19   that dismissal is a “harsh remedy to be used only in extreme situations.” Agiwal v. Mid Island

20   Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (Rule 37); see Baptiste v.

21   Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216–17 (2d Cir. 2014) (Rule 41(b)). We also review the award of

22   attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416

23   (2d Cir. 2010).

24

     1
       Houghtaling also moves to hold appellee’s counsel in contempt of court for purported
     misconduct in connection a notice of appearance. Finding no such misconduct, we DENY
     Houghtaling’s motion.
 1          When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37 for failure to comply with

 2   discovery orders, courts consider “(1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for

 3   noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of

 4   noncompliance, and (4) whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of

 5   noncompliance.” Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302 (citation and alteration omitted). Likewise, when

 6   considering a dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders, a district court

 7   “must weigh five factors: (1) the duration of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court order,

 8   (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3) whether

 9   the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of

10   the court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to

11   be heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than

12   dismissal.” Baptiste, 768 F.3d at 216 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “No single

13   factor is generally dispositive.” Id. In addition, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides that, when the district

14   court imposes sanctions (such as dismissal) pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for failure to comply

15   with a discovery order, “the court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable

16   expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially

17   justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 2

18          Having set out the relevant factors, we have no occasion to assess them because

19   Houghtaling fails to meaningfully address the district court’s adverse rulings in his opening brief.

     2
       The district court stated that the fee award was granted pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)—which applies
     when the court grants a Rule 37(a) motion to compel discovery—but every exception to an award
     of fees under the applicable Rule 37(b)(2)(A) is also available under Rule 37(a)(5).

                                                       3
 1   While we “liberally construe” the filings of pro se litigants “to raise the strongest arguments they

 2   suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (citation

 3   omitted), pro se litigants must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which

 4   “requires appellants in their briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on

 5   appeal,” Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998). We “normally will not[] decide

 6   issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief.” Id.; see also LoSacco v. City of

 7   Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[W]e need not manufacture claims of error for an

 8   appellant proceeding pro se . . . .”).

 9            Houghtaling does not address the district court’s evaluation of the factors outlined above. 3

10   He has therefore forfeited those issues on appeal. Even if it were otherwise, however, we perceive

11   no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal or award of fees, and we would therefore

12   affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s January 18, 2022 decision. See

13   Houghtaling v. Eaton, No. 6:14-cv-6416 (EAW), 2022 WL 167538, at *3–10 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 18,

14   2022).

15            In lieu of raising meaningful challenges to the district court’s decision, Houghtaling

16   accuses defense counsel of misconduct and the magistrate judge of bias. These arguments

17   provide no grounds for remand. To the extent that Houghtaling intends to argue that he had no

18   obligation to comply with the magistrate judge’s orders because they were improper, he is

     3
       Houghtaling’s contention that the district court overlooked arguments raised before the
     magistrate judge—and erroneously treated them as having been raised for the first time in his
     objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation—is misplaced. Even if there
     were such an error, it would be harmless because the district court conducted a de novo review of
     the entire report and recommendation and addressed the objections.

                                                       4
 1   incorrect. “If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy

 2   is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal.” Maness

 3   v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975); see also McDonald v. Head Crim. Ct. Supervisor Officer,

 4   850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988) (“An order issued by a court must be obeyed, even if it is later

 5   shown to be erroneous.”).     Houghtaling’s arguments regarding defense counsel’s purported

 6   misconduct are, likewise, largely irrelevant to whether he could willfully ignore the magistrate

 7   judge’s repeated orders without consequence. Although Houghtaling argues that defense counsel

 8   caused some discovery delays by cancelling depositions, the period at issue here—from the first

 9   order directing Houghtaling to respond to the discovery demands through the orders

10   recommending and ordering dismissal as a sanction for his nonresponse—is independent of any

11   delay attributable to the defendant. Houghtaling also claims that the magistrate judge was biased

12   against him, but that claim is premised entirely on adverse rulings, “and adverse rulings, without

13   more, will rarely suffice to provide a reasonable basis for questioning a judge’s impartiality.”

14   Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218, 227 (2d Cir. 2009).

15          We have considered Houghtaling’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

16   Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Houghtaling’s motion to

17   hold counsel in contempt of court.

18
19                                                 FOR THE COURT:
20                                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                                      5