Rodney Jerome Womack v. W. GIBBONS, Sergeant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
W. GIBBONS, Sergeant; A. GOMEZ,
Correctional Officer; G. OBRIEN,
Correctional Officer; SPECIAL
APPEARANCE; E. SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16780
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00615-AWI-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodney Jerome Womack appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing as a discovery sanction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16780
needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Ingenco
Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 921 F.3d 803, 821 (9th Cir. 2019). We reverse
and remand.
The district court found that Womack’s failure to produce discovery
documents was willful, intentional, and in bad faith. See Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (a sanction of
dismissal is very severe, and “[o]nly willfulness, bad faith, and fault justify
terminating sanctions” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). However,
Womack declared that he mailed a signed declaration of the eyewitnesses, as well
as available medical records, to defendants. When Womack obtained additional
medical records, he requested instructions from the district court on how to send
the documents, because defendants contended that they had not received
Womack’s prior mailing of medical records. Womack’s efforts to comply with his
discovery obligations do not demonstrate “disobedient conduct”; rather,
defendants’ failure to receive the documents were due to circumstances “outside
the control of the litigant.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.
1993). Because the district court’s dismissal of Womack’s action under Rule 37 is
not supported by the record, we reverse the judgment and remand for further
proceedings.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16780
Womack’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Docket Entry
No. 30) is denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --