Hampton

Hampton v. City of Oakland

Good Law
51 F. App'x 685
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 21, 2002No. C.A. 02-15611; D.C. No. CV-00-04152-CRBCalifornia346 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Attorney Jaynelle Bell filed this civil rights action on behalf of her client, Mo-jukhan Hampton, alleging that Oakland police officers illegally arrested him, used excessive force, and planted drugs on him. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and imposed discovery sanctions on Bell. We affirm.

The district court imposed discovery sanctions against Bell pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 37(b) because she violated a court order to schedule her client’s deposition. Her arguments regarding Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11 are accordingly inapposite. Moreover, we do not agree with Bell that her client should pay the sanctions. The court directed “counsel to pay the sum of $1,250 to the City of Oakland as sanctions.” Rule 37(b) specifically provides that sanctions may be imposed against an attorney. Finally, Bell is not being punished for her client’s lack of cooperation. Rather, as the district court carefully explained, Bell had a “responsibility to the court” to comply with the order or to withdraw from the case.

We also reject Bell’s contention that the district court was obligated to order a “mandatory…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.