Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections

D. Nevada

Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections

DecidedMarch 19, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-00236

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections (Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JOE SMITH, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00236-APG-VCF

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Dismiss 5 v. [ECF No. 27] 6 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries move to dismiss plaintiff Joe Smith’s 10 complaint because Smith has not produced initial disclosures or responded to the defendants’ 11 discovery requests. The defendants filed a motion to compel, which the court granted. ECF Nos. 12 24; 25. However, Smith still has not responded to the discovery requests. He also did not 13 respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v), I may sanction a party who “fails 15 to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” including by “dismissing the action or 16 proceeding in whole or in part.” Additionally, under Rule 37(c)(1)(C), I may impose a similar 17 sanction against a party who “fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by 18 Rule 26(a) or (e), . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Before 19 imposing a dismissal sanction, I “must consider (1) whether the claimed noncompliance involved 20 willfulness, fault, or bad faith and (2) the availability of lesser sanctions.” Merch. v. Corizon 21 Health, Inc., 993 F.3d 733, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2021). 22 Smith has not provided his initial disclosures and did not respond to the defendants’ 23 discovery requests. ECF No. 27-1. Smith also did not comply with Magistrate Judge’s order 1} compelling him to do so. ECF Nos. 25; 27-1. Smith has had ample opportunity to respond to discovery and comply with the court’s order, but he has not done so. Smith is at fault for his 3] own failure to participate in this litigation. There are no lesser sanctions available because Smith is non-responsive, has already disobeyed a court order to participate in discovery, and his lack of 5] action renders it impossible to move the case forward. Consequently, I grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendants’ Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries’ motion 8|| to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendants Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries and against plaintiff Joe Smith, and to 10]| close this case. 11 DATED this 19th day of March, 2022. 12 OIE 8 ANDREWP.GORDON. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JOE SMITH, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00236-APG-VCF

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Dismiss 5 v. [ECF No. 27] 6 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries move to dismiss plaintiff Joe Smith’s 10 complaint because Smith has not produced initial disclosures or responded to the defendants’ 11 discovery requests. The defendants filed a motion to compel, which the court granted. ECF Nos. 12 24; 25. However, Smith still has not responded to the discovery requests. He also did not 13 respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v), I may sanction a party who “fails 15 to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” including by “dismissing the action or 16 proceeding in whole or in part.” Additionally, under Rule 37(c)(1)(C), I may impose a similar 17 sanction against a party who “fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by 18 Rule 26(a) or (e), . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Before 19 imposing a dismissal sanction, I “must consider (1) whether the claimed noncompliance involved 20 willfulness, fault, or bad faith and (2) the availability of lesser sanctions.” Merch. v. Corizon 21 Health, Inc., 993 F.3d 733, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2021). 22 Smith has not provided his initial disclosures and did not respond to the defendants’ 23 discovery requests. ECF No. 27-1. Smith also did not comply with Magistrate Judge’s order 1} compelling him to do so. ECF Nos. 25; 27-1. Smith has had ample opportunity to respond to discovery and comply with the court’s order, but he has not done so. Smith is at fault for his 3] own failure to participate in this litigation. There are no lesser sanctions available because Smith is non-responsive, has already disobeyed a court order to participate in discovery, and his lack of 5] action renders it impossible to move the case forward. Consequently, I grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendants’ Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries’ motion 8|| to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendants Nethanjah Childers and Joey Jeffries and against plaintiff Joe Smith, and to 10]| close this case. 11 DATED this 19th day of March, 2022. 12 OIE 8 ANDREWP.GORDON. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Nevada Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-nevada-department-of-corrections-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack