(PC) Flannery v. Holstein

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORVAL D. FLANNERY, No. 2:22-cv-01518-DC-SCR (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 HOLSTEIN, et al., THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 26, 30) 16 17 Plaintiff Orval D. Flannery is a former county inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. No. 26) be granted. (Doc. No. 22 30 at 3.) First, the magistrate judge noted that Defendants’ motion and supporting documents 23 show that Plaintiff did not respond to discovery requests or participate in discovery at all. (Id.) 24 The magistrate judge then applied the factors to set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Conn. Gen. Life 25 Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) to determine 26 whether terminating sanctions were warranted in this case. (Id.) The magistrate judge found that 27 the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 28 court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal primarily because Plaintiff has 1 made no indication he intends to fulfill his discovery obligations. (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge 2 found the third factor, the risk of prejudice to defendants, weighs in favor of dismissal because 3 Plaintiff has provided no explanation for his failure to comply with discovery obligations. (Id.) 4 The magistrate judge determined that the fourth factor weighs against dismissal because it is in 5 the public interest for the case to be addressed on the merits. (Id.) However, the magistrate judge 6 also determined that there are no other sanctions of less severity that would compel Plaintiff’s 7 obligation to participate in discovery. (Id. at 5.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge found that 8 terminating sanctions are justified and that this action should be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. 9 at 5.) 10 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 11 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id.) 12 To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 14 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 15 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 ///// 17 ///// 18 ///// 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 7, 2025 (Doc. No. 30) are 3 ADOPTED in full; 4 2. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED; 5 3. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED; 6 4. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests (Doc. No. 7 26) is DENIED as moot; 8 5. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 9 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 12 Dated: _July 17, 2025 RUC Dena Coggins 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28