United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHERINE MENENDEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jacob Goldmann filed this action pro se, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, on September 6, 2017. Generally, Mr.
Goldmann alleges that while he was confined at the Sherburne
County Jail, the defendants violated his constitutional
rights by unlawfully discontinuing his prescribed medication
to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder related to combat
injuries. [Compl., ECF No. 1.]
he filed his complaint, Mr. Goldmann's participation in
the litigation has been minimal. On October 12, 2017, Mr.
Goldman notified the Court that his address had changed. [ECF
No. 11.] On November 3, 2017, his application for permission
to file electronically was granted by the Clerk's Office.
[ECF No. 15.] And Mr. Goldmann participated in a Rule 26(f)
planning meeting on January 18, 2018, which led to the filing
of a Rule 26(f) Report on February 1, 2018. [ECF No. 23.]
However, Mr. Goldmann did not participate in the Court's
February 13, 2018 pretrial conference, and the Court informed
the parties that it would hold a telephonic status conference
60 days later. [Mins. (Feb. 13, 2018), ECF No. 26.]
March 12, 2018, Defendants Janell Mehlhoff and Diana
Vanderbeek (“the Medical Defendants”) filed a
motion to compel discovery. [ECF No. 28.] Mr. Goldmann did
not file any response to the motion, but he did email counsel
for the Medical Defendants one time shortly after their
motion was filed. [ECF No. 34.] He asked counsel to forward
release forms to him again that would allow them to obtain
relevant information about his medical condition. [ECF No.
34.] However, Mr. Goldmann never returned an executed release
and he had no further contact with counsel for any
April 10, 2018, the Court denied the Medical Defendants'
motion to compel without prejudice because they had not shown
that their informal requests for discovery were served
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Order
(Apr. 10, 2018) at 2-4, ECF No. 33.] However, the Court
Mr. Goldmann is advised that his participation is required
for this case to move forward, and the Court encourages him
to execute the release for provided to him by defense counsel
as soon as possible so that his claims have a chance to be
decided on their merits. If he does not, the Defendants will
almost certainly make the same request in connection with
serving requests for production under Rule 34. If Mr.
Goldmann fails to sign such a release or produce the
documents himself, Ms. Mehlhoff and Ms. VanDerBeek may be
forced to renew their motion to compel, and any failure to
comply with an order that grants such a motion could
potentially carry with it sanctions that would prevent Mr.
Goldmann from having his claims decided on their merits.
[Id. at 4-5.]
April 17, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status
conference, and “[o]nce again, Mr. Goldmann failed to
participate.” [Mins. (Apr. 17, 2018), ECF No. 35.]
Again the Court warned Mr. Goldmann of the consequences of
his failure to participate in the case: “Mr. Goldmann
is advised that his continued failure to appear at court
proceedings, either in person or telephonic, could ultimately
lead to the dismissal of his case.” [Id.]
April 23, 2018, the defendants Brian Frank, Thomas Zerwas,
Joel L. Brott, and Pat Carr (“the County
Defendants”) filed a motion to compel discovery. [ECF
No. 36.] The County Defendants' motion shows that Mr.
Goldmann failed to serve his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures as
required by the Rules and the Scheduling Order. The motion to
compel also demonstrates that Mr. Goldmann failed to serve
answers to interrogatories and requests for production as
required by Rules 33 and 34. Mr. Goldmann did not respond to
deficiency letters sent by the County Defendants'
counsel, nor did he participate in counsel's attempts to
meet and confer regarding his failure to comply with his
discovery obligations. [See Hill Aff., ECF No. 39.]
He filed no response to the motion.
Court held a hearing on the County Defendants' motion on
May 15, 2018. [Mins. (May 15, 2018), ECF No. 42.] Mr.
Goldmann did not appear for the hearing. [Id.]
Goldmann's non-appearance for the May 15, 2018 hearing on
the County Defendants' motion to compel marks the third
time in the relatively short life of this case that he has
failed to participate in a Court proceeding. The record also
demonstrates that Mr. Goldmann has not responded to properly
served discovery requests from the County Defendants, failed
to respond to correspondence concerning that discovery, and
has not complied with his obligation to serve initial
disclosures. For these reasons, the Court finds that Mr.
Goldmann has, at a minimum, failed to prosecute his case, and
possibly abandoned the action altogether.