Luckert v. Gutierrez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-08204
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Luckert v. Gutierrez, Judge Hamilton gave Michael Luckert one final chance to complete discovery before possible dismissal.
Michael L. Luckert and the defendant law-enforcement officers, including O. Smith, Gutierrez, Brule, Espiritu, Mendoza, and Ochoa, were affected. Luckert was required to complete discovery and attend a deposition, while the defendants could seek an amended dismissal motion if he did not comply.
What happened
In Luckert v. Gutierrez, Michael L. Luckert, who was representing himself, claimed that law-enforcement defendants used excessive force during his arrest and while placing him in a county-jail cell.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because Luckert did not answer discovery requests or attend two scheduled depositions. Luckert explained that he was homeless during the first deposition and jailed during the second.
Judge Hamilton gave Luckert one final opportunity to answer the discovery requests and attend a deposition by February 4, 2022. The court warned that failing to cooperate could lead to dismissal with prejudice; the provided text does not show the completed ruling on the defendants’ motion.
The detailed version
- Luckert v. Gutierrez · No. 4:19-cv-08204
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 30, 2021
Background
Michael L. Luckert, a former county detainee proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Patrol Officer Ochoa and Deputies Smith, Gutierrez, Brule, and Espiritu used excessive force while arresting him at a public library. He also alleged that Deputies Gutierrez and Mendoza used excessive force while placing him in a cell at the county jail.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. They argued that Luckert did not respond to written discovery requests and did not appear for a deposition. They also filed a motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of his claims.
Discovery history
The defendants served written discovery requests on March 16, 2021, but Luckert did not respond. After several requests for his availability, the defendants scheduled a remote deposition for June 3, 2021. Luckert did not appear. The defendants rescheduled the deposition for June 21, 2021, but Luckert again did not appear.
Luckert stated that he was homeless on June 3 and could not charge his phone. He stated that he was in custody at Santa Rita Jail beginning June 6 and therefore could not communicate with the defendants about the second deposition. The court acknowledged his difficulties related to homelessness and incarceration but stated that he still had to cooperate with discovery and follow court orders.
Court’s action
The court gave Luckert one final opportunity to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and sit for a deposition by February 4, 2022. The court warned that if he failed to cooperate and failed to follow the order, the defendants could file an amended motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and the case might be dismissed with prejudice, meaning dismissal that would bar refiling the same case.
The order also stated that, if Luckert was deposed, the defendants could refile or amend their motion for summary judgment to present new facts or arguments from the deposition. The provided opinion text cuts off before the verb or disposition following the statement, “Defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.” Accordingly, the completed disposition of that motion cannot be determined from the supplied text. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.