Singanonh v. Fine et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/23/2022 ADOPTING 59 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Defendant's 27 Motion for monetary sanctions, is DENIED; Defendant's 57 Motion for terminating sanction is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:18-cv-1824 KJM AC P

v.

ORDER

R. FINE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On November 30, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 59. Plaintiff has

22

filed an untimely1 response to the findings and recommendations, which the court construes as

23

objections. ECF No. 60. Although the objections were untimely, the court has considered them

24

in the interest of fairness and efficiency.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the

27
28

1

Because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the
prison mailbox rule.
1

1

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The

2

court writes separately to address the objections.

3

Plaintiff explains in his objections that his failure to respond to court orders and discovery

4

requests were due to a misunderstanding about his and his attorney’s duties and his own difficult

5

personal circumstances. He also offers a partial response to some of the defendant’s discovery

6

requests.

7

Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney in this action, so it is unclear how his failure to

8

respond to court orders and discovery requests could be attributable to miscommunications with

9

an attorney. Plaintiff’s difficult personal circumstances and his pro se status are also a reason for

10

lenience, but the Magistrate Judge has extended deadlines and offered warnings, including that

11

the case could be dismissed. Finally, plaintiff’s partial, belated response to the disputed discovery

12

requests does not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order and does not respond to the

13

defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. See Mot. Compel Ex. A, ECF No. 52-2.

14

In these circumstances, although dismissal is a harsh sanction, it is the appropriate sanction, as the

15

Magistrate Judge explained in her Findings and Recommendations.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 30, 2021, ECF No. 59, are adopted

18

in full;

19

2. Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions, ECF No. 57, is denied;

20

3. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanction, ECF No. 57, is granted;

21

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order; and

22

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

23

DATED: February 23, 2022.

24
25
26
27
28
2