Butler v. Branscum et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA DUANE BUTLER
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 23-CV-344-RAW
KEVIN BRANSCUM, DA personally and
in his official capacity; and DEPUTY
MATTHEW YOUNGBLOOD, Personally
and in his official capacity,
Defendant,
ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Deputy Matthew Youngblood’s (“Defendant Youngblood”),
motion for sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery [Dkt. No. 78]. For the
foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
The present motion comes after this court previously granted, in part, Defendant
Youngblood's Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to respond to the Defendant’s First Request for
Production of Documents, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Admission to Plaintiff [Dkt.
No. 61 granting in part the Motion to Compel Dkt. No. 60]. The discovery requests were initially
due on or about Friday, June 14, 2024, and it has been more than a year since the court entered an
order compelling the Plaintiff to respond to the same. The Plaintiff argues that he could not respond
because he is incarcerated and he was transferred to several different facilities. However, according
to his response to Defendant Youngblood’s Motion for Sanctions, the Plaintiff received the
Defendant's discovery requests no later than November 14, 2024 [See Dkt. No. 80 discussing when
Plaintiff received the Defendant’s requests.] Yet, despite being ordered by this court to respond,
he has yet to provide discovery responses.
6:23-cv-00344-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 10/21/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v), "[i]f a party ... fails to obey an order
to provide or permit discovery ... the court where the action is pending may issue further just
orders," including "dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part." Likewise, under Rule
41, the Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a Court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
("If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it."). Moreover, under Rules 37(d)(1)(ii) and
37(d)(3), the Court may dismiss an action after "a party, after being properly served with
interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers,
objections, or written response." Notably, pro se litigants "are not immune from sanctions for
failing to obey a discovery order." Belford v. Nowlin, No. 20-7070, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22460,
2021 WL 3148953, at *2 (10th Cir. July 26, 2021) (unpublished).
The Tenth Circuit has "recognize[d] that dismissal represents an extreme sanction
appropriate only in cases of willful misconduct." Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th
Cir. 1992) (citing Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1520 (10th Cir. 1998); M.E.N. Co. v. Control
Fluidics, Inc., 834 F.2d 869, 872-73 (10th Cir. 1987)). A district court ordinarily considers the
Ehrenhaus factors when deciding whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for discovery
violations, including (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. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921
(10th Cir. 1992) (ellipses, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). The first three factors
aid the Court in deciding whether to apply any sanction, and "[t]he last two inform on whether
dismissal or a lesser sanction is appropriate." King v. Fleming, 899 F.3d 1140, 1150 n.15 (10th
6:23-cv-00344-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 10/21/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Cir. 2018)."Only when the aggravating factors outweigh the judicial system's strong predisposition
to resolve cases on their merits is dismissal an appropriate sanction." Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 921.
Because dismissal as a sanction requires consideration of the Erenhaus factors, the Court
considers each factor in turn. Regarding the first factor, the Defendant has been prejudiced insofar
as he has not been able to conduct discovery and prepare a defense. See Muldrow v. Giannini, Civ.
No. 18-1174 MV/JFR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124260, 2019 WL 3323523, at *3 (D.N.M. May
28, 2019) (finding that failure to "engage in discovery" constituted actual prejudice). Additionally,
the Defendant has incurred attorneys' fees associated with engaging in motion practice to compel
the Plaintiff to engage in discovery. Similarly, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal as
the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order compelling him to respond to discovery
“interferes with the orderly administration of justice”. Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 921.
With respect to the third factor, the plaintiff here is culpable for his lack of response.
Richards v. City of Lovington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69008, *9 (finding that a pro se plaintiff
who had been informed of his obligation to participate in litigation fully and subsequently failed
to respond to discovery was culpable under the third Erenhaus factor). The fourth prong weighs
against dismissal as the Plaintiff was not previously warned that his case could be dismissed
because of his failure to respond. As to the fifth factor, the efficacy of lesser sanctions, the
Defendant contends that lesser sanctions would not be efficacious because the Plaintiff is a pro se
prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 78 at 4. Thus, imposing a monetary sanction
would likely be futile. In general, the court agrees that imposing monetary sanctions against this
Plaintiff would not be productive. Thus, except for factor four, the Erenhaus factors weigh in favor
of dismissal as a sanction.
6:23-cv-00344-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 10/21/25 Page 3 of 5

4
However, unlike the Plaintiff in Richards, the Plaintiff here has not received a warning that
his failure to respond to discovery may result in the dismissal of his case. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
69008. Additionally, many of the cases where a district court imposed sanctions for a pro se
plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery involved plaintiffs who had repeatedly failed to comply
with multiple court orders. Valdez v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 19-cv-01382-PAB-
KMT, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150574, 2020 WL 4882436, at *4 (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2020) (finding
dismissal was appropriate where plaintiff failed to comply with any deadlines, including
responding to defendant's motions); Alonso v. Barham, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210138, *5-6
(Dismissing because plaintiff failed to participate in the case. He was not responding to court
orders, participating in hearings, or prosecuting his claims in any way.) Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,
965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (Affirming dismissal as a sanction where the plaintiff
intentionally refused to appear, which the Court finds to be in bad faith and willful and intentional
disobedience to two court orders).
Here, the Plaintiff has replied to both the Plaintiff’s motion to compel and their motion for
sanctions. Additionally, because the Plaintiff is pro se, the court finds the fact that he was not
previously warned that dismissal may result from failure to respond to discovery, a particularly
compelling factor. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 78] is hereby
DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s discovery
requests within sixty (60) days, or his case will face dismissal.
6:23-cv-00344-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 10/21/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 21st day of October 2025.
______________________________________
THE HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:23-cv-00344-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 10/21/25 Page 5 of 5