Rodney Womack v. W. Gibbons

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 3, 2023
• Docket: 21-16780
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 21-16780

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00615-AWI-SAB

v. MEMORANDUM* W. GIBBONS, Sergeant; A. GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; G. OBRIEN, Correctional Officer; SPECIAL APPEARANCE; E. SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rodney Jerome Womack appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing as a discovery sanction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Ingenco

Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 921 F.3d 803, 821 (9th Cir. 2019). We reverse

and remand.

The district court found that Womack’s failure to produce discovery

documents was willful, intentional, and in bad faith. See Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.

v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (a sanction of

dismissal is very severe, and “[o]nly willfulness, bad faith, and fault justify

terminating sanctions” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). However,

Womack declared that he mailed a signed declaration of the eyewitnesses, as well

as available medical records, to defendants. When Womack obtained additional

medical records, he requested instructions from the district court on how to send

the documents, because defendants contended that they had not received

Womack’s prior mailing of medical records. Womack’s efforts to comply with his

discovery obligations do not demonstrate “disobedient conduct”; rather,

defendants’ failure to receive the documents were due to circumstances “outside

the control of the litigant.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.

1993). Because the district court’s dismissal of Womack’s action under Rule 37 is

not supported by the record, we reverse the judgment and remand for further

proceedings.

2 21-16780 Womack’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Docket Entry

No. 30) is denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3 21-16780