(PC) Barnes v. Van Ness ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 1:20-cv-00625-JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 14 VAN NESS, (Docs. 58, 60) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Antoine Barnes seeks to hold Deputy Van Ness liable for a violation of his civil rights 18 arising under the Eighth Amendment at Hanford County Jail pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 19 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On January 7, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 22 and/or comply with the Court’s order pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 (Doc. 58.) Defendant also requested an award of attorney’s fees. (Id.) On March 11, 2022, the 24 assigned magistrate judge found “Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, 25 meet and confer letters, and motion to compel.” (Doc. 60 at 4.) The magistrate judge also found 26 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to respond to the discovery requests, despite 27 being informed that if he “fail[ed] to comply with this order, Defendant may move for sanctions, 28 up to and including dismissal of this case.” (Id. at 5, quoting Doc. 47 at 3-4.) The magistrate 1 judge determined Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order was willful because there was no 2 explanation provided for the failure, and “no indication that anything outside of Plaintiff’s control 3 prevented him from comply with this Court’s order to respond to the discovery requests.” (Id.) 4 Finding Plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the Court’s order, the magistrate judge 5 considered whether termination sanctions were appropriate, applying the factors identified by the 6 Ninth Circuit in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 (Doc. 60 at 3, 5-6.) The magistrate judge observed that “[n]on-expert discovery has now been 8 closed for over five months, and Defendant still has not received responses to his discovery 9 requests.” (Id. at 5.) The public’s interest in expeditious resolution and the Court’s need to 10 manage its docket thus weighed in favor of dismissal. (Id. at 5-6.) The magistrate judge also 11 found the risk of prejudice weighed in favor of dismissal. (Id. at 5.) Finally, the magistrate judge 12 determined monetary and evidentiary sanctions were not feasible. (Id. at 6.) Thus, the magistrate 13 judge recommended the motion to dismiss be granted and action be dismissed with prejudice 14 “given the stage of the case (non-expert discovery has closed and the dispositive motion deadline 15 has passed), and the time and resources that Defendant has already expended in defending this 16 action.” (Id.) Due to the recommendation for terminating sanctions— and considering Plaintiff’s 17 in forma pauperis status—the magistrate judge found an award of fees and expenses would be 18 unjust, and recommended Defendant’s request be denied. (Id. at 7-8.) 19 The parties were granted fourteen days to file any objections to the Findings and 20 Recommendations. (Doc. 60 at 8.) Defendant did not file any objections. On March 21, 2022, 21 Plaintiff filed his objections, asserting the magistrate judge is corrupt and committed racial 22 profiling and racial targeting against Plaintiff in this matter. (See Doc. 61 at 1-3.) Importantly, 23 however, Plaintiff demonstrates no more than dissatisfaction with the recommendation of 24 terminating sanctions while making these unsubstantiated claims of bias. Plaintiff has not 25 identified any facts to undermine the findings of the magistrate judge. It is undisputed that 26 Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, despite the Court order. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 28 Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the 1 | Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper 2 | analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 11, 2022 (Doc. 60) are 4 ADOPTED. 5 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. 6 3. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. 7 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 21, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28