Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355-10/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

The court determined that the second amended complaint was also appropriate for 1

service on defendants Grant, Wiley, and “CDC Deputy Director.” On June 14, 2005, the

summons was returned unexecuted as to defendant “CDC Deputy Director.” On November 22,

2005, the summonses were returned unexecuted as to defendants Grant and Wiley. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLASS W. HYSELL, No. CIV S-04-0355-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on

July 13, 2004. Defendants Woodford, Johnson, Hamad, Carlson, Jackson, Hill, Pliler,

Goldsmith, and Rosario appeared in the action on August 17, 2005, by way of their answer filed

on August 17, 2005. Pending before the court are a number of motions and requests filed by 1

plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff has filed motions seeking permission to file a supplemental

complaint (Docs. 39 and 47), requests for judicial notice (Docs. 45, 48, 51, and 53), and motion

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 77 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

to compel discovery (Doc. 55). Also pending are plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining

orders (Docs. 44, 46, and 52), which will be addressed separately.

A. Requests to File Supplemental Complaint (Docs. 39 and 47)

Turning first to plaintiff’s requests for permission to file a supplemental

complaint, plaintiff states in his first such request that he wants to add claims concerning events

which have occurred since he was transferred from California State Prison, Sacramento (where

the events alleged in the instant action occurred), to Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff also

states that he wants to add two additional plaintiffs, both of whom are inmates at Mule Creek

State Prison. In his second request, plaintiff states the same grounds for filing a supplemental

complaint and also attached the proposed supplement. Both of plaintiff’s requests are

specifically made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d).

Rule 15(d) provides that the court may, in its broad discretion, allow

supplemental pleadings. In this case, the operative complaint in this case concerns events which

occurred at California State Prison, Sacramento, and involve only one plaintiff. The proposed

supplemental complaint includes allegations concerning events at Mule Creek State Prison, as

well as those at California State Prison, Sacramento, and involve three plaintiffs. The court finds

that allowing this action to proceed with multiple incarcerated pro se plaintiffs presents

procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. This is consistent with the court’s February

19, 2004, order severing this action. To the extent plaintiff, along with the other two inmates

mentioned in his papers, have claims arising from events at Mule Creek State Prison, such claims

should be presented to the court in the context of separate actions by each inmate. 

B. Requests for Judicial Notice (Docs. 45, 48, 51, and 53)

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court may take judicial notice of

adjudicative facts which are either generally known or capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. In each of

the pending requests for judicial notice, plaintiff recites “facts” which allegedly occurred at Mule

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 77 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Creek State Prison. The court cannot properly take judicial notice under Rule 201. The matters

set forth in the requests are not adjudicative in that they concern events at Mule Creek State

Prison and do not relate to the events alleged in the second amended complaint. Moreover, the

matters set forth in the requests for judicial notice do not concern defendants to the instant

action. Simply put, the matters are irrelevant to this case. Finally, the matters set forth are not

generally known or capable of determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be

disputed. Quite the contrary, the matters set forth in the requests for judicial notice are really

allegations of wrongdoing which are subject to reasonable dispute. 

C. Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 55)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a party...fails...to serve answers or objections to interrogatories

submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the

interrogatories, or...to serve a written response to a request for

inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the

request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may

make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among

others it may take any action authorized under subparagraph (A),

(B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. 

Further, the rule provides that the failure to serve timely responses to discovery may not be

excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party so asserting has

a motion for a protective order pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). The rule specifically requires

proper service of the discovery requests at issue. Here, plaintiff states that he served discovery

requests on September 5, 2005, and again sometime in October. Plaintiff has not, however,

provided proof of service of these discovery requests. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel

will be denied. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 77 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to file a supplemental complaint (Docs. 39 and 47) are

denied;

2. Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice (Docs. 45, 48, 51, and 53) are

denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 55) is denied.

DATED: February 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 77 Filed 02/07/06 Page 4 of 4