Smith v. Weiss et al

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING 58 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action With Prejudice for Bad Faith Conduct, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 1:18-cv-00852-NONE-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
FOR BAD FAITH CONDUCT

WEISS, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 58)
Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 11, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

20

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and motion for

21

relief from judgment be denied, defendants’ motion to dismiss/for terminating sanctions be

22

granted, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 58.) The magistrate judge

23

found that terminating sanctions were appropriate due to plaintiff’s bad faith conduct in refusing

24

to comply with his discovery obligations and needlessly multiplying court proceedings by filing

25

repetitious and voluminous filings. (Id.) Following the granting of an extension of time, plaintiff

26

filed objections to the findings and recommendations on February 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 61.)

27
28

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections and a purported counterclaim for contempt,
which are 39 pages long and include more than 100 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff’s objections
1

1

largely relate to the underlying merits of this action, arguing that plaintiff is entitled to summary

2

judgment in his favor and therefore defendants’ requests to take his deposition are harassing and

3

unnecessary. Plaintiff further argues that even if the court finds that summary judgment is not

4

appropriate, he should be permitted to amend his complaint to join claims from numerous other

5

pending cases he has before this court. This is the precise conduct for which the magistrate judge

6

has recommended terminating sanctions, and the court finds plaintiff’s objections to be baseless.
As to plaintiff’s purported contempt claim against defendants, the court is also

7
8

unpersuaded. To the extent plaintiff argues that a finding of contempt is appropriate based on the

9

actions of defendants or defense counsel in other cases, or other purported violations of plaintiff’s

10

civil rights by individuals who are not defendants in this action, those arguments will be

11

disregarded as unrelated to the instant case. As to plaintiff’s argument that defendants should be

12

found in contempt of court orders due to their failure to provide plaintiff with his necessary legal

13

materials in preparation for the July 12, 2019 settlement conference, the court finds that this

14

failure was merely an oversight, rather than evidence of bad faith conduct by defendants or other

15

prison officials. The court finds no support for a finding of contempt against defendants in this

16

action.

17

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

18

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

19

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

20

by proper analysis.

21

Accordingly,

22

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 11, 2020, (Doc. No. 58), are

23

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, (Doc. No. 49), and motion for relief from

24
25

judgment, (Doc. No. 48), are denied;
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss/for terminating sanctions, (Doc. No. 50), is granted;

26
27

/////

28

/////
2

1

4. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s bad faith conduct; and

2

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and terminate all other pending

3
4

motions and deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated:
6

March 5, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3