Lee v. McGuckin

Background

Perris J. Lee filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officers at Salinas Valley State Prison—E. Knox, Curry III, Medina, Streeper, Gasca, and McGuckin—physically attacked him on April 12, 2015, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive force.

Defendants served discovery requests on Lee in March 2021 and again in August 2021. The opinion states that Lee did not respond to those requests. In January 2022, defendants notified the court of the missing responses, moved for summary judgment, and moved to compel Lee to respond. Lee did not respond to those filings.

The court ordered Lee to explain why it should not grant defendants’ summary-judgment motion or dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Lee states that he mailed discovery responses to the court and defendants on or about March 21, 2022. The court returned the responses and explained that discovery is exchanged between the parties rather than filed with the court. Lee did not file a response to the order to show cause by the deadline.

On March 30, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to the court’s order, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Lee later asked the court to vacate the judgment. The court denied that request without prejudice to filing a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that explained why post-judgment relief was warranted.

Lee’s Reconsideration Request

Lee argued that he had timely complied with the court’s order by mailing his discovery responses and serving them on defendants. He also argued that the court erred by refusing to file the discovery responses and returning them with instructions to exchange discovery between the parties. Lee stated that he had filed an opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motion.

The materials attached to Lee’s request included responses to requests for production, requests for admission, and interrogatories, along with medical records, grievance documents, prison incident records, mailing receipts, and a copy of the order to show cause.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Lee had not shown that the earlier dismissal was clearly erroneous. The materials mailed to the court were discovery responses, and the court said it properly returned them because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1) provides that discovery is exchanged between the parties and is not filed with the court.

The court also determined that the discovery responses did not answer the order to show cause. That order required Lee to explain why the court should not grant defendants’ summary-judgment motion or dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The court stated that it would not read through discovery responses and guess how they might answer that order. The court further found that the discovery responses did not constitute an opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motion.

Although the responses showed Lee’s intent to prosecute the case in March 2022, the court found that they did not explain why he had not prosecuted the case earlier. The court noted that Lee knew by October 27, 2021, that defendants had attempted to serve discovery requests, but had not explained why he did not respond to the requests or communicate with the court before March 21, 2022.

Disposition

The court denied Lee’s motion for reconsideration without prejudice. It stated that Lee could file a renewed motion addressing why the court erred in finding that the five dismissal factors favored dismissal and why he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). The order specifically identified requirements for relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), and for relief based on extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6). The order terminated docket entry 69. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.