Theodore J. Thompson v. University Medical Center;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE J. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15483
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01378-RLH-
PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Theodore J. Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
MAY 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15483 2
discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New
Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) based on Thompson’s willful and repeated
violations of the court’s discovery orders after the court repeatedly warned
Thompson of the possibility of terminating sanctions. See id. (discussing factors
for evaluating terminating sanctions); Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912
(9th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[d]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the
control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness,” and that district
court’s finding of willfulness is reviewed for clear error).
Thompson’s contentions that the district court failed to consider his
proposed third amended complaint prior to dismissal, his deposition failed to
comply with the requirements of 7 C.F.R. § 1.148, the district court held him to an
improper standard, and the district court erred in dismissing all claims against all
defendants, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --