Watson v. Charleston, City of, MO et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 32, 38, 42) are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Watson's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 52) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 3/23/17. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT FREDERICK WATSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZACH ALBRIGHT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16CV00021 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Frederick Watson filed the instant action seeking monetary damages for
alleged constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 that he claims occurred during the
booking process at the Mississippi County Jail. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant
Zach Albright’s Third Motion to Dismiss This Action with Prejudice for Plaintiff’s Continued
Violations of Court Orders. (Doc. 42.)
Background
On August 26, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel, and directed
Watson to provide Defendant with his initial disclosures no later than September 6, 2016. (Doc.
31.) The Court also cautioned Watson that failure to comply with the Order may result in
sanctions under Rule 37(b), including dismissal of Watson’s Complaint.
On September 22, 2016, Defendant filed his first Motion to Dismiss, in which he stated
that Plaintiff had not provided Defendant with “all documents that plaintiff believes mention,
relate to, or in any way support plaintiff’s claim” as directed by the Case Management Order.
(Doc. 32) Watson also did not provide Defendant with “a list, including address, of all persons
1

having knowledge or information of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim.” Id. Instead,
Defendant’s counsel received a letter from Watson stating that the only “disclosures” that he
intends on using at trial is the video that was provided to him in Defendant’s initial disclosures.
(Doc. 33-1.) Defendant requested that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice as a sanction
for Watson’s violations of the Court’s Order to provide Defendant with Plaintiff’s initial
disclosures.
In an Order dated October 17, 2016, the Court found that Watson’s failure to provide
initial disclosures appeared to result from his incorrect belief that he was only required to
provide evidence that he intended to use at trial. (Doc. 36.) The Court, therefore, explained that
Watson must provide Defendant with “all documents that plaintiff believes mention, relate to, or
in any way support plaintiff’s claim” and “a list, including address, of all persons having
knowledge or information of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 4. The Court
instructed Watson that he should provide these documents even if he does not intend to use them
at trial. Watson was given until October 31, 2016, to provide the above-described documents.
He was cautioned that the failure to comply with the Court’s Order could result in sanctions
under Rule 37(b), including the dismissal of his Complaint.
On October 26, 2016, Watson filed a notice with the Court, in which he stated as follows:
In response to your letter requesting certain information and documents that I do
not have. I send the Defendant everything I had plus I told the Defendant lawyer
when we had our deposition that the video was my only documents so I have
nothing to offer until I get someone to help me with this case. Now I send the
Defendant all I had plus the video should support my claim.
(Doc. 37 at 1.)

2

Defendant responded by filing a Second Motion to Dismiss, in which he requested that
the Court dismiss this action with prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s violations of the Court’s
Orders. (Doc. 38.)
In an Order dated November 17, 2016, the Court informed Watson that counsel would
not be appointed, and gave Watson one last opportunity to comply fully with the Court’s Orders.
(Doc. 41.) Watson was again directed to provide Defendant with “all documents that plaintiff
believes mention, relate to, or in any way support plaintiff’s claim,” and “a list, including
address, of all persons having knowledge or information of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claim.” Watson was instructed to provide these documents even if he does not intend to use
them at trial, and was cautioned that “failure to comply with the Court’s Order will result in
the dismissal of Watson’s Complaint.” Id. at 4.
Discussion
In the instant Motion to Dismiss, Defendant states that Watson has still not provided
Defendant with his initial disclosures. Specifically, Defendant contends that Watson has failed
to provide a list, including addresses, of all persons having knowledge or information of the facts
giving rise to his claim. Defendant argues that Watson has willfully disobeyed this Court’s
orders and requests that the Court dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37.
On January 6, 2017, Watson filed a letter in which he states as follows:
I Robert Watson (plaintiff), have found in my possession a document dated 6-116 and stamped Jun 06 2016, that states the name Will Doris and the address 200
Commercial St Charleston, MO 63834. Said document gives name and address of
said witness, along with security camera. Therefore, I pray that this suffices court
and defendant, and also shows that I have complied with courts order to provide
said information. According to my knowledge, I have done all within my power
and ability to comply with all request.

3

(Doc. 46.) In addition, Watson has filed two additional letters notifying the Court of changes to
his address, as well as an additional request for the appointment of counsel. (Docs. 50, 51, 52.)
Rule 37(b)(2)(A), 37(d)(1)(A) and 37(d)(3) collectively grant the Court authority and
discretion to impose sanctions for discovery abuses and pretrial order violations. Sanctionable
behavior failing to serve answers, objections, or written responses to interrogatories.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i), (ii); see also Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994). It is
well established that a plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying with court
orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the requirements of discovery.
Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Ackra Direct
Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d
801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986).
Sanctions include dismissal of the action in whole or in part. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2)(A)(v), (d)(3). A district court has wide latitude to impose sanctions under Rule 37(d).
See Hazen v. Pasley, 768 F.2d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Martin v. DaimlerChrysler
Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2001) (“When a litigant’s conduct abuses the judicial process,
dismissal of a lawsuit is a remedy within the inherent power of the court”); Rodgers v. Curators
of the Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1222 (8th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal of action as
discovery sanction after finding that any lesser sanction would have involved further delay or
would have forced opposing party to try case without completing discovery). However,
dismissal for failure to comply with discovery rules is an extreme sanction, reserved for willful
or bad faith default. Anderson v. Home Insurance Company, 724 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1984).
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a deliberate default suffices, which includes failure to
respond to discovery requests, and failure to provide information following a court order. Id.

4

In this case, Watson has attempted to comply fully with the Court’s orders. Although
Watson did not provide the names and addresses of witnesses in a list form, he has notified
Defendants of the name and address of a witness to the incident at issue, and has otherwise
provided Defendant with all the information in his possession related to his claim. Any technical
deficiencies in Watson’s filings appear to be related to his pro se status, rather than a willful
disregard of the Court’s orders. Watson has requested the assistance of counsel. The dismissal
of Watson’s Complaint under these circumstances would be inappropriate. Thus, the Court will
deny Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss.
Watson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel will be denied without prejudice at this
time. Watson is cautioned that he must comply fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and this Court’s orders. He may request the assistance of counsel at a later date if it becomes
necessary.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 32, 38, 42) are
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Watson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
52) is denied without prejudice.

ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2017.

5