(PC) Goods v. Virga

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY GOODS, No. 2:17-CV-0660-DJC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TIM V. VIRGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On August 17, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties 22 may file objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to the findings 23 and recommendations have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304(f), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 26 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 / / / 1 After entry of the findings and recommendations, Defendants notified the 2 Court that Plaintiff had submitted supplemental responses to Defendants’ 3 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2. (See Notice 4 to the Court (ECF No. 74) at 1–2, Ex. A.) While the responses to the Interrogatories are 5 sufficiently responsive, Plaintiff has failed to adequately respond to the Request for 6 Production by failing to produce the documents identified in the interrogatory 7 responses or show that Plaintiff exercised due diligence in attempting to obtain the 8 documents. While Plaintiff maintains that he is missing certain documents after the 9 transfer of his property, he has failed to request his file through the Olson review 10 process. See In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (1974); (ECF No. 64 at 9). The Court 11 cannot excuse Plaintiff’s failure to obtain and produce the requested documents 12 without a sufficient showing of diligence. The responses thus do not affect the 13 analysis or conclusions in the findings and recommendations. 14 Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations likewise do not 15 affect the findings and recommendation. First, although Plaintiff admits that his legal 16 documents were eventually transferred, he asserts that some of his legal mail is 17 missing (though he has repeatedly failed to describe what he believes is missing). 18 (Objections (ECF No. 81 at 1.) As noted above, Plaintiff had other avenues to obtain 19 the relevant documents which he failed to utilize. Next, Plaintiff asserts that he did not 20 timely oppose the Defendants’ Motion because he did not understand what it was. 21 (Id. at 2.) Had Plaintiff read the Motion he would have gathered that it was a motion to 22 sanction Plaintiff by terminating the case, and his lack of reasonable diligence in this 23 regard does not excuse his failure to oppose to Motion. In any event, the objections 24 do not raise any new arguments or counsel toward a different outcome. Similarly, 25 Plaintiff stated that he believed he had until August 4, 2023 and argues that his failure 26 to timely produce discovery should be excused. (Id. at 2.) However, even if the Court 27 considers the late-filed discovery, Plaintiff’s responses are insufficient and do not 28 //// 1 | satisfy his discovery requirement. In short, the objections also do not affect the 2 || analysis or conclusions in the findings and recommendations. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 17, 2023, ECF No. 72, 5 | are adopted in full. 6 2. Defendants’ unopposed motion for terminating sanctions, ECF No. 66, is 7 | GRANTED. 8 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _March 11, 2024 “Darel A CDbnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28