Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00716-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CLINT DRAPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0716 FCD GGH P

vs.

JEFFREY HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel filed December 3,

2004, and February 18, 2005.

Motion to Compel filed December 3, 2004

Plaintiff claims that on October 28, 2004, defendants served plaintiff with a

response to his third request for discovery and production of evidence. Plaintiff claims that

defendants failed to comply with request nos. 1-13. Plaintiff also claims that on November 8,

2004, defendants failed to provide him with “one copy of statement of District Attorney Report

from the District Attorney from Solana County, pertaining to false battery on a peace officer

charge written by defendant Harris, on September 23, 2001. Request no. 12.”

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00716-FCD-GGH Document 88 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On December 15, 2004, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to

compel. Attached as exhibit G is a copy of defendants’ October 28, 2004, response to plaintiff’s

third request for production of documents. Request no. 1 was objected to on grounds that the

documents requested were available for inspection in the law library. Request nos. 2, 4-12 were

objected to on a variety of grounds, but without waiving objections, documents were provided. 

Request nos. 3 and 13 were objected to and no documents were provided in response. 

Plaintiff does not describe how the documents provided were not responsive to his

requests. In addition, plaintiff does not claim that the document sought in request no. 1 is not

available in the prison law library. Plaintiff also does not address why defendants’ objections to

his request nos. 3 and 13 were without merit.

Because plaintiff has not stated the specific grounds of his complaints regarding

defendants’ responses to his third request for discovery, the court finds that his motion to compel

as to these requests is not well supported. The motion to compel as to these requests is denied.

Attached to defendants’ opposition as exhibit I is a copy of their response to

plaintiff’s request for the District Attorney’s report. Defendants responded that they diligently

searched for the document but could not locate it. In the motion to compel, plaintiff argues that

this document exists and refers to an incident report attached to his motion which states that the

incident for which plaintiff received a rules violation would be reviewed for consideration for

referral to the Solano County District Attorney’s Office. 

The court cannot order defendants to produce a document that they represent

cannot be located after a diligent search. On March 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a reply to

defendants’ oppositions to both of his pending motions to compel. In this document, he appears

to claim that he is seeking a copy of the form that prison officials used to refer his case to the

District Attorney’s Office. The DA referral form is different from the document sought in the

instant motion to compel. The document sought in the instant motion appears to be one

generated by the District Attorney’s Office rather than by prison officials. For these reasons,

Case 2:02-cv-00716-FCD-GGH Document 88 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request is denied.

February 18, 2005, Motion to Compel

In this motion, plaintiff claims the following discovery disputes: 1) defendants

refused to produce plaintiff’s medical and dental records for 2001-2002; 2) defendants refused to

let plaintiff inspect the personnel records of defendant Harris; 3) plaintiff’s counselors did not

grant plaintiff an adequate opportunity to examine and inspect records regarding the November

13, 2001, disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff did not attach to his motion any of the at-issue discovery

requests, including defendants’ responses.

On March 1, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Defendants state that they are unaware of any request by plaintiff for his medical and dental

records for the years 2001 and 2002. Defendants state that they have responded to his request for

his medical records from the incident occurring September 16, 2001. Defendants also state that

they are unaware of any request by plaintiff for defendant Harris’ personnel records. Finally,

defendants state that the documents plaintiff’s claims he was not allowed adequate time to

inspect were actually produced to plaintiff in response to no. 12 of his third request for discovery.

Plaintiff cannot compel defendants to produce documents he has not first

requested. None of the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s March 11, 2005, reply to defendants’

opposition demonstrate that these requests were ever made. Plaintiff’s claim that he was not

granted adequate time to review documents by his counselors appears unrelated to any discovery

request. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel filed

December 3, 2004, and February 18, 2005, are denied.

DATED: 4/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

drap716.com UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00716-FCD-GGH Document 88 Filed 04/20/05 Page 3 of 3