(PC) McBounds v. Clays et al

Filing 61

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/13/2023 RECOMMENDING that the 57 Motion to Dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK MCBOUNDS,

12

No. 2:19-cv-2208 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D. CLAYS, et al.,

15

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

On July 13, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

18

Procedure 16(f), 37(b), and 41(b). Despite being granted an extension of time, plaintiff failed to

19

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. As discussed below, it is

20

recommended that this action be dismissed.

21

Background
On October 26, 2022, the parties were informed that failure to comply with the court’s

22
23

order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local Rules of Court may result in the

24

imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, dismissal of the action or entry of default.

25

(ECF No. 49 at 8), citing see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
On December 16, 2022, defendants served requests for admissions, interrogatories and

26
27

requests for production of documents on plaintiff. (ECF No. 57 at 8 (Seuell Decl.); see also ECF

28

////
1

1

No. 52 at 9-30 (discovery requests).) Plaintiff’s responses were due on February 2, 2023;

2

plaintiff did not respond or seek an extension. (ECF No. 57 at 8.)

3

On February 22, 2023, plaintiff appeared for deposition; during a discussion about the

4

overdue discovery responses, plaintiff claimed he needed additional time to respond, and counsel

5

for defendants advised he would seek modification of the scheduling order to resolve the

6

discovery issue. (Id.) Plaintiff stated he would send the discovery responses as soon as possible.

7

(Id.) Defendants sought and were granted extensions of the discovery and pretrial motions

8

deadlines. (ECF Nos. 50, 51.)

9

Plaintiff again failed to respond to the discovery requests or to seek additional time. (ECF

10

No. 57 at 9.) On April 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses, and

11

sought to modify the scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.) On April 12, 2023, the undersigned

12

reminded plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the motion to compel under Local Rule 230(l),

13

and the discovery deadline was extended until the motion to compel was resolved. (ECF No. 54.)

14

On May 22, 2023, defendants’ motion to compel was partially granted; plaintiff was

15

granted thirty days to file written responses and to show cause why the court should not deem

16

admitted defendants’ requests for admissions and cautioned plaintiff that failure to respond to the

17

written discovery requests or to the court’s order “may result in a recommendation that this action

18

be dismissed.” (ECF No. 55.)

19

Plaintiff again failed to respond, both to the discovery requests and to the court’s order.

20

Based on such failures, on July 11, 2023, the admissions were deemed admitted, and defendants

21

were directed to file an appropriate motion. (ECF No. 56.)

22

On July 13, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants argue that plaintiff

23

failed to respond to defendants’ discovery requests and failed to comply with the court’s order to

24

file responses to defendants’ discovery requests and show cause why defendants’ requests for

25

admissions should not be deemed admitted (ECF No. 55). (ECF No. 57.)

26

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Instead, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file

27

an amended complaint. On August 10, 2023, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an

28

amended complaint was denied based on plaintiff’s failures to (1) address the pending motion to
2

1

dismiss, (2) respond to discovery, (3) respond to court orders, (4) provide specific facts as to why

2

amendment was sought, and (5) provide a proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff

3

was granted thirty days to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Id.)

4

Plaintiff again failed to file an opposition. On September 28, 2023, plaintiff was reminded

5

that Local Rule 230(l) provides in part that “[f]ailure of the responding party to file written

6

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

7

the granting of the motion.” (ECF No. 60.) Further, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply

8

with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by

9

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Id. Finally, plaintiff was cautioned

10

that Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the involuntary dismissal of

11

his case if he fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. (ECF No. 60.)

12

Plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss within thirty days. Plaintiff

13

did not file an opposition or otherwise respond.

14

Legal Standards

15

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal for a party’s

16

failure to comply with court orders. Id. District courts also have the inherent power to control

17

their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where

18

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A

19

court may also impose sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal, or terminating sanctions, on

20

a party who does not comply with discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
“The standards governing dismissal for failure to obey a court order are basically the

21
22

same” under Rule 37(b) and Rule 41(b). Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

23

1987); see Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal under

24

Rule 41(b) is “closely analogous” to the imposition of terminating sanctions under Rule 37(b));

25

Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1385 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The standards

26

governing dismissal for failure to obey court orders are the same under Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

37(b)(2)(C) or 41(b).”).

28

////
3

1

However, when a party seeks terminating sanctions based on a violation of Rule 37(b), the

2

court’s “range of discretion is narrowed, and the losing party’s noncompliance must be due to

3

willfulness, fault, or bad faith.” Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997)

4

(quoting Henry v. Gill Indust., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also In re Exxon Valdez,

5

102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal under Rule 37(b) requires a threshold showing that

6

the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the non-moving party).

7

If the moving party meets such threshold showing, the court applies a “five-part test, with

8

three subparts to the fifth part” to determine whether terminating sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)

9

are just:

10

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

11
12
13

Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

14

2007) (footnote omitted). 1 “The sub-parts of the fifth factor are whether the court has considered

15

lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the

16

possibility of case dispositive sanctions.” Id. at 1096. Such five-part test “is not mechanical,” but

17

rather “provides the district court with a way to think about what to do, not a set of conditions

18

precedent for sanctions or a script that the district court must follow.” Id.

19

Discussion

20

Was plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery willful?

21

The court may consider a party’s pro se status “in evaluating the willfulness of discovery

22

violations and the failure to obey court orders and in weighing the other factors regarding

23

dismissal, but pro se status does not excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules and

24

court orders.” Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (collecting cases).

25

“Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to

26

demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.

27
28

1

These are the same five factors considered under Rule 41(b). Sanchez, 298 F.R.D. at 470.
4

1

2003) (citation omitted); see also Sanchez, 298 F.R.D. at 463 (noting that willfulness, bad faith,

2

and fault requirement “does not require wrongful intent”). In evaluating the propriety of

3

sanctions, the Court considers “all incidents of a party’s misconduct.” Adriana Int’l Corp. v.

4

Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 (1991).

5

Here, the record reflects that plaintiff’s failure to respond was willful. Plaintiff failed to

6

respond to discovery requests and even after plaintiff told counsel for defendants that plaintiff

7

would send the discovery responses as soon as possible, plaintiff again failed to do so. Plaintiff

8

offers no explanation for his failure to respond to discovery requests propounded in December of

9

2022, and does not demonstrate that such failure was due to circumstances beyond his control.

10

Do the five factors support terminating sanctions?

11

The court next evaluates whether the five factors weigh in favor of imposing terminating

12

sanctions. Such factors provide a “way for a . . . judge to think about what to do,” rather than “a

13

series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything.” In re Phenylpropanolamine

14

(PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006), quoting Valley Eng’rs v. Electric

15

Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). “The most critical factor to be considered in

16

case-dispositive sanctions is whether ‘a party’s discovery violations make it impossible for a

17

court to be confident that the parties will ever have access to the true facts.’” Conn. Gen. Life

18

Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057 (internal quotes and citation

19

omitted); see also Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990) (the amount of

20

prejudice resulting from the discovery violations and the availability of less drastic sanctions are

21

said to be “key factors”).

22

First, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation favors dismissal. This

23

action was filed on November 1, 2019. The first scheduling order issued in October of 2022, and

24

the written discovery requests were initially propounded to plaintiff in December. The resolution

25

of this action has been delayed for many months due to plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery

26

requests. Plaintiff’s actions have prevented this case from proceeding in a timely fashion.

27
28

Turning to the second factor, the court’s need to manage its docket also favors dismissal.
District courts must be able to manage their dockets “without being subject to endless non5

1

compliance with case management orders.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227. Plaintiff’s failure to

2

respond to the written discovery requests has required multiple modifications to the scheduling

3

order.

4

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, also favors dismissal. To prove

5

prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions impaired defendant’s ability to

6

proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. Malone, 833 F.2d

7

at 131. As argued by defendants, the failure to respond to discovery is sufficient to show

8

prejudice. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227 (citing Adriana, 913 F.2d at 1412). Plaintiff has not

9

responded to the written discovery requests or to subsequent court orders addressing plaintiff’s

10

failure to respond, thus impairing defendants’ ability to proceed to trial. It has now been over a

11

year since the court issued its first discovery order, and defendants have been unable to obtain

12

responses to their written discovery requests. Such unreasonable delay weighs in favor of

13

dismissal. It is also prejudicial to defendants to allow plaintiff to continue prosecuting this action

14

while depriving defendants of the right to conduct meaningful discovery.

15

The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, does not

16

favor dismissal. But this factor is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed

17

herein. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2006) (policy favoring

18

merits adjudication is not, without more, sufficient to outweigh other factors).
In connection with the fifth factor, the court must consider whether lesser sanctions are

19
20

appropriate. In this case, the undersigned finds that less drastic sanctions are not available.
The court previously imposed a lesser sanction when it ordered plaintiff to respond to the

21
22

written discovery and show cause why the request for admissions should not be deemed admitted.

23

The court then granted plaintiff two additional opportunities to respond to the motion to dismiss.

24

Also, the court provided plaintiff multiple warnings that his failure to provide discovery

25

responses would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Despite such

26

////

27

////

28

////
6

1

warnings, plaintiff failed to provide discovery responses and failed to respond to multiple court

2

orders. 2

3

Moreover, the court has considered recommending monetary sanctions rather than

4

terminating sanctions, but finds that under the circumstances, ordering monetary sanctions would

5

be ineffective given plaintiff’s indigency. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

6

pauperis based on his showing of indigency. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to court orders also

7

demonstrates that imposing monetary sanctions would not motivate plaintiff to provide discovery

8

responses or otherwise cooperate in the prosecution of this action. Therefore, the undersigned

9

finds that the lesser sanction of monetary sanctions is not available.

10

Conclusion

11

Four of the five factors weigh in favor of imposing terminating sanctions based on

12

plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery and court orders. Thus, it is recommended that

13

defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.

14

Monetary Sanctions
A court that imposes sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “must” order the sanctioned party

15
16

to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the other party due to the

17

noncompliance with the discovery order “unless the failure was substantially justified or other

18

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). While plaintiff’s

19

failure to comply with discovery was not substantially justified, the undersigned declines to

20

recommend imposition of monetary sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) because such order would

21

be unjust considering plaintiff’s indigency. Further, it would be unjust to impose monetary

22

sanctions where the court recommends terminating sanctions. See, e.g., Reddy v. Precyse

23

Solutions LLC, 2015 WL 3797297 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2015) (finding the plaintiff willfully

24

////

25
26
27
28

2

After the motion to dismiss was filed, plaintiff filed one motion for extension of time. (ECF
No. 58.) However, plaintiff failed to address the overdue discovery responses or the pending
motion to dismiss. Rather, plaintiff sought additional time to file an amended complaint to “add
components” that “needed to be added.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff claimed his incarceration limited his
ability to access the prison law library. (Id. at 5.)
7

1

refused to comply with discovery orders and imposing terminating sanctions but denying as

2

unjust additional monetary sanctions).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

4

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 57) be granted; and

5

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

8

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

9

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

11

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

12

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

13

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14

Dated: November 13, 2023

15
16
17
18

/mcbo2208.mtd.37b

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8