Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Amadasu v. University of Utah, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Plaintiff Darlington Amadasu sued defendants University of Utah, University of Utah Hospital, and others alleging discrimination based on race, age, disability and retaliation. 2) The district court dismissed Amadasu's complaint under Rule 37 for willful and repeated discovery abuse, including failing to fully respond to discovery requests. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the district court properly considered the relevant factors and Amadasu's conduct prejudiced defendants and interfered with the judicial process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Amadasu v. University of Utah, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    78 views5 pages
    1) Plaintiff Darlington Amadasu sued defendants University of Utah, University of Utah Hospital, and others alleging discrimination based on race, age, disability and retaliation. 2) The district court dismissed Amadasu's complaint under Rule 37 for willful and repeated discovery abuse, including failing to fully respond to discovery requests. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the district court properly considered the relevant factors and Amadasu's conduct prejudiced defendants and interfered with the judicial process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4236

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Plaintiff Darlington Amadasu sued defendants University of Utah, University of Utah Hospital, and others alleging discrimination based on race, age, disability and retaliation. 2) The district court dismissed Amadasu's complaint under Rule 37 for willful and repeated discovery abuse, including failing to fully respond to discovery requests. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the district court properly considered the relevant factors and Amadasu's conduct prejudiced defendants and interfered with the judicial process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    78 views5 pages

    Amadasu v. University of Utah, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Plaintiff Darlington Amadasu sued defendants University of Utah, University of Utah Hospital, and others alleging discrimination based on race, age, disability and retaliation. 2) The district court dismissed Amadasu's complaint under Rule 37 for willful and repeated discovery abuse, including failing to fully respond to discovery requests. 3) The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the district court properly considered the relevant factors and Amadasu's conduct prejudiced defendants and interfered with the judicial process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAR 25 2004

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    DARLINGTON AMADASU,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    UNIVERSITY OF UTAH;
    UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HOSPITAL;
    ROYCE MOSER, JR.; CYNTHIA R.
    LEWIS-YOUNGER,

    No. 02-4236
    (D.C. No. 2:00-CV-133-ST)
    (D. Utah)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before SEYMOUR , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and


    HENRY , Circuit Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal.

    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Plaintiff Darlington Amadasu, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,


    sued defendants University of Utah, University of Utah Hospital, Royce Moser,
    Jr., and Cynthia R. Lewis-Younger for allegedly discriminating against him in
    violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
    Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    He also asserted civil

    rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various state law claims. The district
    court dismissed his complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for willful and repeated
    discovery abuse. We affirm.

    Mr. Amadasu is an individual of Nigerian origin, over forty years of age,


    suffering from depression and a stress disorder. His complaint alleged that
    defendants discouraged his application for a position as a resident in a family
    practice program, denied his request for appointment as a salaried resident in an
    occupational and environmental medicine program, and refused to hire him for
    more than forty other jobs, ranging from teaching/research assistant to messenger.
    According to Mr. Amadasu, defendants engaged in illegal discrimination based on
    race, ethnic origin, age, and disability; harassment; defamation; and retaliation.
    Plaintiff initially filed suit in the United States District Court for the
    Southern District of Ohio, where he resides. That court transferred the case to the
    District of Utah.

    In light of our affirmance of the Rule 37 dismissal of Mr. Amadasus


    complaint, we need not address the many additional issues he raises in his
    appellate briefs.

    -2-

    Proceedings in district court did not go smoothly. Mr. Amadasu served


    discovery requests in excess of the number established by the scheduling order,
    attempted to add eleven new parties and eleven new claims after the deadline for
    amending the complaint, and filed numerous motions alleging conspiracy on the
    part of the magistrate judge, defense counsel, the court reporter, and the court
    reporting service. Additionally, Mr. Amadasu failed to timely respond to
    defendants dispositive motions and failed to appear for two noticed hearings.
    Moreover, he did not fully respond to defendants requests for discovery even
    after being warned that the court would consider dismissing the complaint unless
    he answered the interrogatories and produced all documents responsive to
    defendants discovery requests.
    Eventually, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). The rule authorizes a district court to sanction a party
    who fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.

    Id. Included among

    the available sanctions is the entry of judgment by default against the


    disobedient party.

    Id. The district court granted defendants motion and

    dismissed the case with prejudice.


    [W]e review a courts decision to dismiss for discovery violations under
    an abuse of discretion standard.
    (10th Cir. 1992) (citing

    Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,

    965 F.2d 916, 920

    Natl Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club


    -3-

    , Inc. ,

    427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (per curiam)). Because dismissal represents an
    extreme sanction appropriate only in cases of willful misconduct, however, the
    district court must ensure that dismissal is a just sanction for the offending partys
    actions. Id. Thus, in addition to considering the culpability of the offending
    party, a court should consider:
    (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of
    interference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the
    litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that
    dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance;
    and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.
    Id. at 921 (quotations and citations omitted). If a party appears pro se, the court
    should carefully assess whether it might appropriately impose some sanction other
    than dismissal, so that the party does not unknowingly lose its right of access to
    the courts because of a technical violation.

    Id. at 920 n.3

    On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the dismissal was premeditated and


    predetermined, Aplts Br. at 4, by the district court judge, magistrate judge, and
    defense counsel. He contends that the district courts rulings, culminating with
    the dismissal order, were unfair, unwarranted, and erroneous.
    After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court acted within
    its discretion in dismissing the complaint. The court carefully considered the
    Ehrenhaus factors and determined that Mr. Amadasus conduct prejudiced
    defendants, seriously interfered with the judicial process, demonstrate[d]
    -4-

    a willfulness that warrants dismissal, and persisted after he was put on notice of
    the potential consequences of his continued failures to comply. R., Vol. IV.,
    Doc. 158, at 7-8.

    The record before us demonstrates no basis for a conclusion

    that the court abused its discretion in granting defendants Rule 37(b)(2) motion
    to dismiss.
    We AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of the complaint. The mandate
    shall issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court

    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Circuit Judge

    We note that Mr. Amadasu failed to attach a copy of the courts dismissal
    order to his opening brief, as required by 10th Cir. R. 28.2(A). We remind
    counsel for defendants that if an appellants brief omits a required ruling, then
    appellees are to include it in their response brief.
    See 10th Cir. R. 28.2 (B).

    -5-

    You might also like