1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARYL ANTHONY HICKS, Case No. 2:20-cv-2303-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GOSAI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, has filed a motion to alter 18 or amend judgment.1 ECF No. 101. The procedural history of this case is extensive, so I will 19 only review the history intertwined with the court’s order closing this action. 20 In November 2020, plaintiff filed this action alleging that defendants Gosai and Ramme 21 violated his Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. The initial discovery and scheduling order, 22 issued July 5, 2023, set the discovery deadline as December 8, 2023, and the dispositive motion 23 deadline as May 3, 2024. ECF No. 53. Following that, defendants filed five motions to modify 24 the scheduling order, ECF Nos. 56, 59, 65, 76, & 94—needed, at least in part, due to plaintiff’s 25
1 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2025. ECF No. 106. This court, 26 however, has jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion to amend or alter the judgment. See Fed. R. 27 App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the district court was not divested of jurisdiction when a motion for 28 reconsideration was pending at the time the notice of appeal was filed). 1 failure to engage in discovery—two motions to compel, ECF Nos. 61 & 82, and two motions for 2 terminating sanctions, ECF No. 72 & 89. 3 With respect to the first motion for terminating sanctions, defendants argued that plaintiff 4 failed to respond to discovery propounded October 6, 2023. ECF No. 72-1 at 1-2. After 5 receiving no response from plaintiff, defense counsel provided plaintiff with an unsolicited 6 extension of time to November 30, 2023. Id. at 2. Defendants did not receive responses from 7 plaintiff by his deposition on December 7, 2023. Id. Due to technical difficulties, the deposition 8 did not go forward that day, but on the record, plaintiff told defense counsel that he received the 9 discovery requests and would provide responses. Id. Defense counsel sent plaintiff a letter on 10 December 13, 2023, which provided plaintiff with another extension to January 18, 2024, to serve 11 his responses. Id. 12 On January 8, 2024, plaintiff filed with the court a document titled “Response of 13 Deposition,” however, the document did not contain discovery responses. Id. at 3; see ECF No. 14 58. On January 18, 2024, at plaintiff’s rescheduled deposition, he again agreed to provide 15 discovery responses. ECF No. 72-1 at 3. On February 14, 2024, after defendants had not 16 received responses from plaintiff, defense counsel sent plaintiff another meet and confer letter, 17 which provided plaintiff another week to file his responses. Id. 18 After not receiving any correspondence from plaintiff about his outstanding discovery 19 responses, defendants filed a motion to compel on March 11, 2024. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff did not 20 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. In light of plaintiff’s numerous extensions of 21 time and his repeated failures to engage in discovery, the court granted defendants’ motion and 22 ordered plaintiff to provide discovery responses within twenty-one days of June 5, 2024. ECF 23 No. 71. In that order, the court reminded plaintiff that each party has an obligation in litigation to 24 respond to properly propounded discovery requests and if a party chooses to ignore that 25 obligation, the court has the authority to impose certain sanctions—including dismissal. Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A), (d)(3). The court also informed plaintiff that his pro se status does not 27 excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules and court orders. See Lindstedt v. City of 28 1 Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming sanction of dismissal, holding that “[a] pro 2 se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer, particularly here with the fulfilling of 3 simple requirements of discovery”); Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) 4 (holding that district court could not decline to impose any sanction for violation of Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 11 simply because plaintiff was proceeding pro se). Finally, the court indicated that should 6 plaintiff fail again to engage productively in the discovery process, it would consider the sanction 7 of dismissal. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Alameda, 2007 WL 1750207, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 8 2007) (“[P]ro se plaintiffs must abide by the rules of discovery, and when they fail to do so in bad 9 faith dismissal is warranted.”). 10 I ultimately denied defendants’ motion for sanctions because plaintiff had eventually 11 responded to defendants’ discovery request. ECF No. 79. However, I granted defendants the 12 opportunity to review plaintiff’s new discovery responses and to file a motion to compel should 13 they deem the responses deficient. Id. Defendants later filed a motion to compel, which I granted 14 on April 29, 2025. ECF No. 87. I found that defendants had carried their burden of 15 demonstrating that the requests for production and interrogatories were relevant, and plaintiff had 16 not explained why his answers were sufficient. Id. I ordered plaintiff to provide supplemental 17 discovery responses within twenty-one days. Id. 18 Plaintiff did not comply with April 29, 2025 order, and defendants renewed their motion 19 for terminating sanctions. ECF No. 89. Plaintiff sought additional time to comply with the April 20 29 order, which I granted in part, providing plaintiff until June 26, 2025 to comply with the April 21 29 order. ECF No. 90. Defendants maintained in their July 17, 2025 reply to their motion for 22 terminating sanctions that plaintiff still had not served them with any discovery responses. ECF 23 No. 96. Accordingly, on August 18, 2025, I recommended that defendants’ motion for 24 terminating sanctions be granted. ECF No. 97. The court adopted that recommendation in full on 25 September 29, 2025, and closed this action. ECF No. 101. The same day, plaintiff filed the 26 pending motion to amend the judgment.2 ECF No. 103. 27 2 Plaintiff signed the motion on September 24, 2025, titling it, “Motion to Amend 28 Magistrate Judgement (sic).” ECF No. 103 at 1. It is unclear whether plaintiff seeks to amend 1 There are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: “(1) if such 2 motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 3 such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if 4 such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 5 intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 6 2011). However, “amending a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which should 7 be used sparingly.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a Rule 59(e) 8 motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that 9 could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 10 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 11 Procedure, § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995)). 12 Plaintiff has not identified a valid basis for amending the court’s judgment. Plaintiff 13 argues that he was released from prison in January, but was re-arrested on August 13, 2025, and 14 has not had access to the law library or writing materials since his re-arrest.3 ECF No. 103.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARYL ANTHONY HICKS, Case No. 2:20-cv-2303-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GOSAI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, has filed a motion to alter 18 or amend judgment.1 ECF No. 101. The procedural history of this case is extensive, so I will 19 only review the history intertwined with the court’s order closing this action. 20 In November 2020, plaintiff filed this action alleging that defendants Gosai and Ramme 21 violated his Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. The initial discovery and scheduling order, 22 issued July 5, 2023, set the discovery deadline as December 8, 2023, and the dispositive motion 23 deadline as May 3, 2024. ECF No. 53. Following that, defendants filed five motions to modify 24 the scheduling order, ECF Nos. 56, 59, 65, 76, & 94—needed, at least in part, due to plaintiff’s 25
1 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2025. ECF No. 106. This court, 26 however, has jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion to amend or alter the judgment. See Fed. R. 27 App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the district court was not divested of jurisdiction when a motion for 28 reconsideration was pending at the time the notice of appeal was filed). 1 failure to engage in discovery—two motions to compel, ECF Nos. 61 & 82, and two motions for 2 terminating sanctions, ECF No. 72 & 89. 3 With respect to the first motion for terminating sanctions, defendants argued that plaintiff 4 failed to respond to discovery propounded October 6, 2023. ECF No. 72-1 at 1-2. After 5 receiving no response from plaintiff, defense counsel provided plaintiff with an unsolicited 6 extension of time to November 30, 2023. Id. at 2. Defendants did not receive responses from 7 plaintiff by his deposition on December 7, 2023. Id. Due to technical difficulties, the deposition 8 did not go forward that day, but on the record, plaintiff told defense counsel that he received the 9 discovery requests and would provide responses. Id. Defense counsel sent plaintiff a letter on 10 December 13, 2023, which provided plaintiff with another extension to January 18, 2024, to serve 11 his responses. Id. 12 On January 8, 2024, plaintiff filed with the court a document titled “Response of 13 Deposition,” however, the document did not contain discovery responses. Id. at 3; see ECF No. 14 58. On January 18, 2024, at plaintiff’s rescheduled deposition, he again agreed to provide 15 discovery responses. ECF No. 72-1 at 3. On February 14, 2024, after defendants had not 16 received responses from plaintiff, defense counsel sent plaintiff another meet and confer letter, 17 which provided plaintiff another week to file his responses. Id. 18 After not receiving any correspondence from plaintiff about his outstanding discovery 19 responses, defendants filed a motion to compel on March 11, 2024. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff did not 20 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. In light of plaintiff’s numerous extensions of 21 time and his repeated failures to engage in discovery, the court granted defendants’ motion and 22 ordered plaintiff to provide discovery responses within twenty-one days of June 5, 2024. ECF 23 No. 71. In that order, the court reminded plaintiff that each party has an obligation in litigation to 24 respond to properly propounded discovery requests and if a party chooses to ignore that 25 obligation, the court has the authority to impose certain sanctions—including dismissal. Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A), (d)(3). The court also informed plaintiff that his pro se status does not 27 excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules and court orders. See Lindstedt v. City of 28 1 Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming sanction of dismissal, holding that “[a] pro 2 se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer, particularly here with the fulfilling of 3 simple requirements of discovery”); Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) 4 (holding that district court could not decline to impose any sanction for violation of Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 11 simply because plaintiff was proceeding pro se). Finally, the court indicated that should 6 plaintiff fail again to engage productively in the discovery process, it would consider the sanction 7 of dismissal. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Alameda, 2007 WL 1750207, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 8 2007) (“[P]ro se plaintiffs must abide by the rules of discovery, and when they fail to do so in bad 9 faith dismissal is warranted.”). 10 I ultimately denied defendants’ motion for sanctions because plaintiff had eventually 11 responded to defendants’ discovery request. ECF No. 79. However, I granted defendants the 12 opportunity to review plaintiff’s new discovery responses and to file a motion to compel should 13 they deem the responses deficient. Id. Defendants later filed a motion to compel, which I granted 14 on April 29, 2025. ECF No. 87. I found that defendants had carried their burden of 15 demonstrating that the requests for production and interrogatories were relevant, and plaintiff had 16 not explained why his answers were sufficient. Id. I ordered plaintiff to provide supplemental 17 discovery responses within twenty-one days. Id. 18 Plaintiff did not comply with April 29, 2025 order, and defendants renewed their motion 19 for terminating sanctions. ECF No. 89. Plaintiff sought additional time to comply with the April 20 29 order, which I granted in part, providing plaintiff until June 26, 2025 to comply with the April 21 29 order. ECF No. 90. Defendants maintained in their July 17, 2025 reply to their motion for 22 terminating sanctions that plaintiff still had not served them with any discovery responses. ECF 23 No. 96. Accordingly, on August 18, 2025, I recommended that defendants’ motion for 24 terminating sanctions be granted. ECF No. 97. The court adopted that recommendation in full on 25 September 29, 2025, and closed this action. ECF No. 101. The same day, plaintiff filed the 26 pending motion to amend the judgment.2 ECF No. 103. 27 2 Plaintiff signed the motion on September 24, 2025, titling it, “Motion to Amend 28 Magistrate Judgement (sic).” ECF No. 103 at 1. It is unclear whether plaintiff seeks to amend 1 There are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: “(1) if such 2 motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 3 such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if 4 such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 5 intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 6 2011). However, “amending a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which should 7 be used sparingly.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a Rule 59(e) 8 motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that 9 could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 10 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 11 Procedure, § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995)). 12 Plaintiff has not identified a valid basis for amending the court’s judgment. Plaintiff 13 argues that he was released from prison in January, but was re-arrested on August 13, 2025, and 14 has not had access to the law library or writing materials since his re-arrest.3 ECF No. 103. 15 At bottom, plaintiff’s motion does not identify new evidence, present new argument, or 16 support a finding that the court committed clear error in reaching this conclusion. Moreover, 17 plaintiff filed objections to the August 18 findings and recommendations, and the court 18 considered them. His motion, therefore, should be denied. See Witkin v. Wagner, No. 2:20-cv- 19 0267-WBS-CKD (PC), 2022 WL 3371697, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2022) (denying the 20 plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment, observing that the plaintiff’s “motion rehashes the 21 arguments that he raised in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 Recommendations,” and noting that “[t]hese arguments were considered by this court prior to 23 entering judgment”). 24 the August 18 findings and recommendations or the September 29 judgment. If plaintiff intends 25 to amend the findings and recommendations, he already had the opportunity to so in his previously filed objections, ECF No. 97, which were considered by the court. ECF No. 101. 26 3 While plaintiff argues that he has not had access to the law library and that obtaining 27 writing materials and postage is almost impossible, plaintiff filed objections, a motion to compel, and a motion for the appoint of counsel on September 24, 2025, while he was in custody. ECF 28 Nos. 98, 99, 100. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion to amend the 2 | judgment, ECF No. 103, be DENIED. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 5 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 6 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 7 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 8 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 9 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 10 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 11 1991). 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ October 22, 2025 Q————. 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28