Williams v. Ass. Warden McKay

Filing 229

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 208 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's pleadings, and this entire case, are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. 220 ) is DENIED. Plain tiff's Motion for Copies at No Charge for Appeal (Dkt. 225 ) is DENIED, given that the appeal has been dismissed (Dkt. 226 ). In the future, Plaintiff shall direct any such motion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (hs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KENT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00008-REP
ORDER ON PENDING
MOTIONS

DEPUTY WARDEN McKAY, et al.,
Defendants.

On October 30, 2023, the Court permitted Defendants to proceed with latepropounded discovery on qualified immunity and any other threshold defenses. The
Court adjusted all of the pretrial deadlines, including the discovery response date, so that
the parties could have adequate facts to brief an early summary judgment motion. Dkt.
206. Plaintiff identified insufficient prejudice to his case resulting from having to respond
to the late-propounded discovery requests, and he was provided with an extension of time
to respond to any pending requests. Dkt. 206. He did not respond.
Defendants attempted to settle the dispute over Plaintiff’s noncompliance in a
second “meet and confer” letter of November 28, 2023. Dkt. 208-3 at 5. Plaintiff did not
respond to the letter. Dkt. 208-1 at 5.
On January 22, 2024, Defendants requested that the Court impose sanctions upon
Plaintiff for failing to comply with Orders requiring him to provide discovery responses

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 1

to Defendants. Dkt. 208. In an Order on June 26, 2024, Plaintiff was given notice that the
Court would dismiss his pleadings and enter judgment with prejudice against him in this
case if he failed to provide discovery to Defendants within 21 days after entry of that
Order, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b). Dkt. 214. The parties were
ordered to file a notice of compliance or non-compliance after the deadline. Id. The
parties were ordered not to file anything else until further Order of the Court. Id. In
addition, because the Court has addressed Plaintiff’s complaints about the prison copy
service many times and ordered Plaintiff to cease requesting the same relief, the Court
subsequently ordered that “Plaintiff shall not file any further motions or other documents
addressing these issues.” Dkt. 219 at 2.
To date, Plaintiff has wholly failed to provide responses to Defendants’ discovery
request. See Dkt. 227 (“Second Notice of Noncompliance”). Instead, he has filed
numerous other documents contrary to the Court’s Orders. See Dkt. 215, 216, 217, 220,
221, 223, 224, 225.
The Orders of June 26, 2024 (Dkt. 214) and August 2, 2024 (Dkt. 219) gave
Plaintiff adequate notice that the Court would dismiss his pleadings and enter judgment
with prejudice against him in this case if he failed to provide discovery to Defendants by
the final deadline of September 2, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 41(b). Each Order
provided an extension of time for Plaintiff to comply—a total of 41 days. Defendants
filed a Second Notice of Noncompliance on September 5, 2024, nine months after they
filed their Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff has had sufficient notice that his case would be
dismissed without further notice for his failure to comply.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 2

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior Orders,
and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and (d), and 41(b), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 208) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s pleadings, and this entire case, are DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. 220) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies at No Charge for Appeal (Dkt. 225) is DENIED,
given that the appeal has been dismissed (Dkt. 226). In the future, Plaintiff
shall direct any such motion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
5. Because Defendants assert that they intend to pursue a three strikes ruling
against Petitioner at the appropriate time, they are reminded that the three
strikes rule applies only to dismissals based on the specific grounds set forth in
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is true that this is Plaintiff’s second case dismissed as a
result of a discovery-related sanction, see Williams v. Brooks, 1:17-cv-00223DCN, but neither case was dismissed on grounds of having asserted only
frivolous or malicious claims or for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The Ninth Circuit has held that summary judgment dismissals
do not count as strikes unless they are decided on § 1915(g) grounds that the
complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. El-Shaddai v.
Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1044, 1044 n.4 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Andrews v.
King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005), for the principle that “it is not the
style or procedural posture of a dismissal that is dispositive, but whether we
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 3

can determine, ‘after careful evaluation of the order ... and other relevant
information,’ that the district court dismissed the case on one of the grounds
enumerated in § 1915(g).”).
DATED: September 25, 2024
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 4