(PC) Hicks v. Gosai
2:20-cv-02303
E.D. Cal.Nov 7, 2024Background
- Daryl Hicks, a state prisoner, brought a pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants sought terminating sanctions after Hicks failed to timely respond to multiple discovery requests, despite several extensions and a court order compelling responses.
- An order was issued on June 5, 2024, requiring Hicks to provide discovery responses within 21 days and warning of possible sanctions, including dismissal, for noncompliance.
- Hicks claimed to have mailed discovery responses in July 2024, which defense counsel confirmed were received, albeit late.
- The court previously granted defendants’ motion to compel but found that Hicks eventually engaged in the discovery process.
- Defendants now sought terminating sanctions, arguing that Hicks’ responses were inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should case be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery order? | Hicks responded (albeit late) | Hicks failed to comply with June 5, 2024, discovery order | Denied; plaintiff substantially complied |
| Are plaintiff’s discovery responses sufficient? | Opposes claim of deficiency | Responses are deficient (raised in reply brief) | Not decided; not at issue |
| Does pro se status excuse discovery noncompliance? | No explicit argument | Pro se status is not an excuse | Agreed; rules apply equally |
| Should further motion practice be permitted? | No explicit argument | Requests opportunity to move to compel if responses deficient | Granted; defendants may move to compel |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2000) (pro se plaintiffs must comply with discovery rules as lawyers do)
- Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1994) (sanctions can apply to pro se litigants who violate discovery rules)