(PC) Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt

Opinion

MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD, Case No. 1:17-cv-01659 JLT BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, AND PRUITT, et al., DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE Defendants. (Docs. 62, 63) Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud, aka Treasure Stroud, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, seeking terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order compelling discovery. (Doc. 62.) The magistrate judge observed that Defendants previously moved to compel Plaintiff’s production of documents that she relied upon during her deposition and “did not turn over for copying or scanning.” (Doc. 63 at 1, citing Doc. 58.) The Court granted the motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to produce the requested documents for scanning with a written declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, confirming the documents produced were the same as those relied upon during her deposition. (See Doc. 60.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with this order and acted in bad faith. (Doc. 63 at 6-7.) The magistrate judge considered the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Doc. 63 at 8-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant the motion to dismiss. (/d. at 11.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Doc. 63 at 11, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The Court granted Plaintiff's two requests for extensions of time and ordered Plaintiff to file objections within 30 days of the extension granted on April 8, 2025. Although 50 days have now passed, Plaintiff did not file any objections. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 6, 2025 (Doc. 63) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. 62) is GRANTED. 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s order compelling discovery production. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: __May 30, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE