May 17 2016
DA 15-0236
Case Number: DA 15-0236
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 112N
PHYLLIS T. JAMISON,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MISSOULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV-11-2
Honorable Ed McLean, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Phyllis T. Jamison (Self-Represented), Clinton, Montana
For Appellee:
Kirsten Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, Matt Jennings, Erica Grinde,
Deputy County Attorneys, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 4, 2016
Decided: May 17, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Phyllis Jamison appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint as a
sanction for Jamison’s failure to comply with discovery and with scheduling orders. We
affirm.
¶3 This case arises from Jamison’s long-standing disagreements with Missoula
County over abandonment of a county right-of-way in Clinton. Jamison v. Van
Valkenburg, 2010 MT 238N, 359 Mont. 443, 249 P.3d 80 (Table). In the present case,
the County served Jamison with discovery requests concerning the issues raised in her
complaint. Over a span of months Jamison failed to meet deadlines for responding to the
discovery, or responded in meaningless ways. When asked, for example, to explain the
basis for her allegation that the County committed vandalism on her property, she
responded that she would “need to set up cameras to obtain proof.” Jamison does not
contend that she complied with deadlines or with substantive responses to discovery, but
rather blames the County for giving her confusing instructions about what she should do.
¶4 The District Court gave Jamison numerous extensions to respond to discovery and
warned her expressly that her continuing failure to comply with discovery and court
2
orders could result in sanctions that included dismissal. The County ultimately moved to
dismiss pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 37(d) and 16(f), arguing that Jamison failed to comply
with the District Court’s scheduling orders and failed to respond to discovery requests.
The District Court granted the County’s motion to dismiss, finding that Jamison failed to
provide meaningful responses to discovery and failed to comply with the orders requiring
her to do so. The District Court also noted that Jamison failed to respond to the motion to
dismiss. The District Court found that dismissal was the appropriate sanction because no
lesser sanction would cause her to comply.
¶5 The Rules of Civil Procedure plainly allow a district court to dismiss an action as a
sanction for failure to comply with scheduling orders and for failure to comply with
discovery. M. R. Civ. P. 16, 37; Linn v. Whitaker, 2007 MT 46, ¶ 20, 336 Mont. 131,
152 P.3d 1282.
¶6 Jamison further contends that the District Court erred by requiring her to
participate in the costs of mediation after she was deemed to be indigent. However, the
mediation never occurred and Jamison has not paid any fees. This issue is moot. Finally,
Jamison contends that she had a right to appointed counsel. However, this is a civil case
initiated by Jamison. As such, she is not entitled to appointment of counsel at public
expense.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, this case presents questions controlled by settled law.
¶8 Affirmed.
3
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
4