Willis v. Taylor

Background

Calvin Willis filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that, on March 14, 2019, San Quentin State Prison correctional officer Matthew Taylor used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The court had previously ordered Willis to participate in a deposition. The defendant attempted to take the deposition four times without success. The opinion describes one cancellation caused by Willis’s transfer, two occasions when Willis refused to participate while seeking counsel or because he said he did not know the deposition had been scheduled, and an October 7, 2025 occasion when Willis said he was represented but could not provide his lawyer’s name or contact information. The opinion states that no attorney had filed a notice of appearance for Willis as of October 23, 2025.

On October 14, 2025, the court granted the defendant’s request to compel Willis’s deposition and ordered him to appear and participate. The court warned that failing to do so could result in evidentiary sanctions, striking pleadings, or partial or complete dismissal. The deposition was rescheduled for November 4, 2025.

Court’s Concerns

Defense counsel told the court that she was concerned she could not conduct the November 4 deposition if Willis again claimed to have counsel who was not present and had not filed a notice of appearance. The court stated that Willis’s refusal to participate without counsel, combined with his claim that he was represented despite no counsel appearing, was preventing the case from moving forward.

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to represented and self-represented litigants. It also explained that a party must cooperate with relevant, nonprivileged discovery, including a deposition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, failure to obey a discovery order can lead to sanctions, including limits on evidence or dismissal. Under Rule 41(b), a court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal, for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order.

Order

The court ordered Willis to participate in the November 4, 2025 deposition. If he is represented, his counsel must attend. The court cautioned that claiming to be represented when no lawyer is present and no notice of appearance has been filed would violate the October 14 order.

If Willis has counsel, counsel must by October 31, 2025, file a notice of appearance, contact defense counsel to discuss the deposition, and file a notice confirming that the discussion occurred. By November 11, 2025, the defendant must file a status report stating whether the deposition occurred and, if not, why it failed and whether terminating sanctions are appropriate.

If the deposition does not occur, Willis must by November 11, 2025, show cause—meaning explain to the court—why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the October 14 deposition order. The court did not dismiss the action in this order; it issued these directives and warnings.