Anant Tripati v. Corizon Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 27 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI, No. 16-15598
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00615-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORIZON INCORPORATED;
DIMITRIC CATSAROS, Dr.; JOSEPH
MOYSE, Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees,
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Intervenor-Defendant-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Anant Kumar Tripati filed a pro se suit against Corizon, Inc.—the private
provider of medical care to Arizona inmates—alleging violations of his civil rights.
The district court found that Tripati lied about being blind in support of a
procedural motion to have his typewriter returned to him, and dismissed the case as
a sanction. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the dismissal and remand
for further proceedings.
“We review sanctions imposed by a district court for abuse of discretion.”
Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 379 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “[i]n
cases where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are ordered, the range of
discretion for a district court is narrowed.” Id. at 380. “The most critical criterion
for the imposition of a dismissal sanction is that the misconduct penalized must
relate to matters in controversy in such a way as to interfere with the rightful
decision of the case. This rule is rooted in general due process concerns. There
must be a nexus between the party’s actionable conduct and the merits of his case.”
Id. at 381 (citations omitted).
The district court found that a nexus existed because “[Tripati]’s
misrepresentations concern[ed] his medical condition, which is directly at issue in
this lawsuit.” The district court defined the nexus at too high a level of generality.
Tripati never sought any relief on the merits (as opposed to an intermediate
2
procedural issue) on the basis of any issues with his eyesight. There was therefore
“no nexus between the party’s actionable conduct and the merits of his case” and
no “interfere[nce] with the rightful decision of the case.” Id.
We recognize that this is a close case and that the district judge was
presented with a difficult decision. Nevertheless, given the pro se status of the
plaintiff and our high standard for dismissal, we are obligated to reverse.
Accordingly, the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3