Stratmon v. Tucker et al
Filing
69
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending denial of Plaintiff's 68 MOTION for Judgment by Default and to Strike Defendant's answer signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/17/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DAVID L. STRATMON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
ANGELA MORRIS,
Defendant.
14
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01837-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AND
TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER
[ECF No. 68]
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
I.
18
INTRODUCTION
19
Plaintiff David L. Stratmon, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
20
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
21
(1971). This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Morris interfered with his receipt of
22
incoming mail and failed to notify him that his mail was being withheld. This matter was referred to
23
the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
24
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for judgment by default and to strike
25
Defendant’s answer, filed on December 7, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) The time for a response to the motion
26
has passed, and no response was filed. The motion is deemed submitted without oral argument. Local
27
Rule 230(l).
28
1
1
II.
2
DISCUSSION
Motion for Judgment by Default and to Strike Defendant’s Answer
3
A.
4
On November 30, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule
5
of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff’s response to that motion was due within twenty-one
6
(21) days of the date of service of that motion. Local Rule 230(l). That deadline has passed, and no
7
response has been filed.
8
Instead, as noted above, on December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff
9
asserts that his ability to litigate his claim in this case has been “severely curtailed due to the
10
destruction and confiscation of his legal materials,” including reference books, affidavits, declarations,
11
draft motions, and other documents. (ECF No. 68, at p. 1.) Plaintiff further asserts that he is unable to
12
reobtain these materials, and that his materials were gathered over a four-year period. Plaintiff further
13
asserts that prison officials failed to protect and preserve his access to the courts, and did so with more
14
than inadvertence, lack of due care, negligence or error. Specifically, Plaintiff states that defendant “S.
15
White” failed to preserve his materials, but the only defendant in this matter is Defendant Morris.
16
Plaintiff further asserts that his items were not properly confiscated as contraband. Therefore, he seeks
17
a judgment by default.
18
Liberally construed, it appears Plaintiff seeks a judgment by default and to strike Defendant’s
19
answer as a sanction for interference by prison officials with his ability to gather and retain evidence
20
in this case and litigate his claim. Logically, this also appears to be a reason for Plaintiff’s failure to
21
respond to Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion.
22
B.
Legal Standards
23
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits sanctions against a party who “fails to
24
obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Those sanctions include
25
“directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for
26
purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i); “prohibiting the
27
disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing
28
designated matters in evidence,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii); “striking pleadings in whole or in
2
1
part,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii); and “rendering a default judgment against the disobedient
2
party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vi).
3
Dismissal and default judgment are allowed only in “extreme circumstances.” Brookhaven
4
Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 332 Fed. Appx. 387, 389 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Wyle v.
5
R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589, 591 (9th Cir. 1983)). “[I]n order to warrant imposition
6
of [default] sanctions, the violation(s) must be ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.’ ”
7
United States ex rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988)
8
(quoting Wyle, 709 F.2d at 589).
9
C.
Analysis
10
In general, prisoners have a constitutional right to litigate claims challenging their sentences or
11
the conditions of their confinement without active interference by prison officials. Silva v. Di Vittorio,
12
658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807
13
F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, prison officials are prohibited from engaging in malicious,
14
affirmative, and intentional interference in a prisoner’s right to litigate.
15
Here, Plaintiff has only made general and unsupported allegations of interference by prison
16
officials who are not the Defendant in this matter. Plaintiff states that books, legal documents, draft
17
documents, and other documents were interfered with, but does not explain what these materials were.
18
Since no particular documents or materials are described, it is not clear what materials Plaintiff is
19
deprived of that are necessary for litigating this case. Further, there are no allegations against
20
Defendant Morris, although Plaintiff seeks to strike that Defendant’s answer and seeks for default
21
judgment to be entered against that Defendant.
22
Plaintiff also states that his materials were destroyed and confiscated. The fact that some
23
materials were confiscated, rather than destroyed, implies that materials may be returned to him which
24
may enable him to prosecute this case and to prepare a response to the pending motion for summary
25
judgment. The extent of any alleged interference by prison officials is not clear. Plaintiff also does not
26
describe how he knows whether his materials were destroyed, lost, damaged, or taken for storage
27
purposes, or whether he made any attempts to have his materials returned. There are simply no facts
28
given or evidence presented to describe how prison officials have specifically interfered with his
3
1
ability to litigate this case, much less any evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or fault by Defendant
2
Morris through any active interference with Plaintiff’s ability to litigate.
On the limited unsupported contentions that Plaintiff has provided, the Court cannot determine
3
4
that that requested sanctions are warranted under the circumstances.
5
III.
6
CONCLUSION
7
For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion
8
for judgment by default and to strike Defendant’s answer, filed on December 7, 2017 (ECF No. 68),
9
be denied.
10
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days
12
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections
13
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
14
Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
15
may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.
16
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
20
January 17, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?