Farias v. Lopez
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04167
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Farias v. Atchley, Judge Freeman denied Farias’s summary-judgment and discovery motions, struck an amended complaint, denied dismissal sanctions, and ordered his deposition.
Jorge Alberto Farias and the prison-staff defendants, including Matthew Atchley, Matthew Lopez, Gutierrez-Paricio, Barrera-Negrete, Cortina, and Ear. Farias must attend and participate in a properly noticed deposition, while the defendants must continue the case under the court’s briefing schedule and address his discovery requests in good faith.
What happened
In Jorge Alberto Farias v. Matthew Atchley, et al., Farias, a state prisoner representing himself, brought civil-rights claims under federal law against prison staff. The court had allowed claims involving excessive force, access to the courts, and disability rights to proceed.
The court denied Farias’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice because it did not explain the legal or factual basis for judgment and included no supporting evidence. The court struck his later amended complaint, denied his motion to compel discovery without prejudice because the parties had not first tried to resolve the dispute, denied the defendants’ motion for dismissal sanctions, and granted their alternative request to require Farias to attend a deposition.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the case to continue under a new briefing schedule. Farias must participate in a properly noticed deposition, and failure to comply may support dismissal; the defendants must file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 56 days after the order is filed.
The detailed version
- Farias v. Lopez · No. 5:21-cv-04167
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Jorge Alberto Farias, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. After screening, the court allowed claims for excessive force against Matthew Lopez, Gutierrez-Paricio, and Barrera-Negrete; denial of access to the courts against Cortina and Ear; and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Lopez, Gutierrez-Paricio, Barrera-Negrete, Cortina, and Ear. The court dismissed the non-cognizable claims and struck an earlier amended complaint, while allowing Farias opportunities to amend.
Farias later filed a document titled a motion for summary judgment, an “amended complaint,” and a motion seeking an order compelling responses to interrogatories. The defendants filed a motion for dismissal sanctions based on Farias’s failure to participate fully in noticed depositions and, alternatively, sought an order requiring him to attend a deposition.
Rulings
The court denied Farias’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice. It concluded that the two-page filing did not identify the basis for judgment, the record evidence showing no genuine dispute of material fact, or the required issues, facts, and arguments under the local rule. Farias relied on his complaint and unanswered interrogatories and submitted no discovery evidence or affidavits. The court stated that he could submit a new compliant motion after discovery and supporting evidence.
The court struck Farias’s August 29, 2022 “amended complaint” as superfluous. The filing largely repeated the cover sheet from an earlier amended complaint that had already been stricken and did not explain what claims Farias sought to amend.
The court denied Farias’s motion to compel without prejudice because the parties had not met and conferred in good faith before he sought court intervention. The court explained that a prisoner may meet and confer by telephone or letters, rather than in person, but must still make a good-faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute first.
The court denied the defendants’ motion for dismissal sanctions as premature. It instead granted their alternative request for an order compelling Farias to submit to a deposition. The court stated that lesser measures should generally be attempted before the severe sanction of dismissal. Farias was ordered to appear for and fully participate in a properly noticed deposition, even if he remained without a lawyer. The court warned that refusing to comply could support dismissal of the entire action. The court also reminded the defendants to respond in good faith and timely to Farias’s discovery requests.
Disposition and next steps
The court ordered the action to proceed under a briefing schedule. The defendants must file a summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion within 56 days after the order is filed. Farias must file an opposition within 28 days after that motion, and the defendants may file a reply within 14 days after the opposition. Docket Nos. 26, 31, and 32 were terminated.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.