Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-15/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBMIT TO

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION

AND MOTION DEMANDING ADDITIONAL

“INDISPENSABLE” PARTIES (Docs. 51, 59.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 52.) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 54-2.) 

Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order to submit to physical and mental

examination. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel discovery on February 2, 2006. On February

27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion demanding additional INDISPENSABLE

parties.” 

A. Motion Regarding Mental and Physical Examination

Plaintiff is requesting that this Court issue an Order requiring him to submit to a mental

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 6
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

27

28

2

and physical examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a). 

Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 35 to obtain a physical and mental examination is misplaced. 

Rule 35 is a mechanism by which a party, at that party’s cost, may obtain an order for the

examination of an opposing party. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. Should Plaintiff

wish to arrange for an independent medical examination of himself, he may do so at his own cost

and without a court order. 

B. Motion Demanding Additional of “INDISPENSABLE” parties.

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion demanding addition of

INDISPENSABLE parties” However, although framed as a Motion, review of the document

shows that the pleading is actually an Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiff did not seek

permission to file an Amended Complaint prior to submitting the pleading. Moreover, because

Plaintiff did not complete a form Complaint, he did not provide the necessary information to

determine whether or not his claims were exhausted. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

As noted above, Plaintiff has not sought permission to amend his Complaint at this

juncture in the proceeding. The record reveals that the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint in

May of 2005 and provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to cure defects outlined in the Order

Dismissing with Leave to Amend. However, Plaintiff opted to abandon all claims but the Eighth

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Clark, Rainey and McKain. Some of

Plaintiff’s claims against certain individuals he wishes to now include were simply not

cognizable in a Section 1983 action. The Court declines to construe the instant Motion as a

Motion to Amend as Plaintiff does state with any specificity which Defendants he wishes to add

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

3

or why. As noted above, the document is really an Amended Complaint and thus, Plaintiff

provides no explanation as to the need to amend to include various parties, the claims against

them or why they should be included at this stage in the proceedings. By proceeding in this

manner, Plaintiff has also denied Defendants the opportunity to respond to a proposed motion to

amend. Accordingly, in light of the above, the Court will DENY the Motion demanding the

addition of other parties. 

C. Motion to Compel

On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel discovery. Plaintiff states that

he has not received answers to sets 1 through 13 of interrogatories propounded on Defendants. 

Upon review of the motion to compel, however, the court notes that plaintiff has failed to comply

with Federal Rule fo Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(A). 

The Court’s discovery and scheduling order issued June 15, 2004, stated specifically that

all discovery was to comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 11-110, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 5-134, 5-135, 6-136,

43-140 and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States Court. 

Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to

compel contain certification that the moving party has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to

confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

intervention. The Motion before the court, however, contains no certification that plaintiff has

complied with the meet and confer requirement imposed by the rules. 

In addition, the discovery propounded on Defendants exceeds the number of requests for

interrogatories allowed under the Federal Rules. Defendants state that they have properly

responded to the 25 interrogatories allowed under the Rules. As Rule 33 provides for a

maximum of 25 interrogatories, leave of court must be sought in order to propound

interrogatories that exceed 25. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Here, however, Plaintiff has propounded 713

interrogatories on each Defendant, well over the number contemplated by the rules. 

Accordingly, in light of the above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. 

D. Motion for Protective Order

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 6
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

27

28

4

In conjunction with the Opposition to the Motion to Compel, Defendants seek a

protective order to prevent further harassment by Plaintiff via the discovery process by relieving

Defendants from having to respond to discovery that is irrelevant, unnecessary, vulgar,

threatening and harassing. (Opposition at 3.) Defendants point to not only the number of

interrogatories propounded but also reference some of the requests made by Plaintiff to the

Defendants as being harassing. For example, Plaintiff has inquired of each Defendant “which of

Michael Jackson’s songs is their favorite, which sexual position they prefer, and how many bites

it takes them to finish a donut.” (Opposition at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff inquires of the

Defendants whether they view child pornography on the internet, molest children and whether

the children “complaint that your cock was too big for their tiny genital orifice.” (Opposition at

4.) Plaintiff also asks the names and ages of each of the Defendants children and whether they

would be “extremely frighten for your life and love’s ones when Mr. Nguon is release in a few

years.” Id. 

Pretrial discovery by deposition and interrogatories have the significant potential for

abuse. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2209 (1984). While

discovery rules are accorded broad and liberal treatment, “discovery, like all matters of

procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507

(1947). Discovery is provided to the parties for the purpose of assisting in the preparation and

trial, or the settlement, of litigated disputes. Because of the liberality of the pretrial discovery

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1), it is necessary for the trial court to have the authority to issue

protective orders conferred by Rule 26(c) to protect from abuses flowing from the employment of

the discovery rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), provides, in part, that “[u]pon motion

by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought . . . , and for good cause shown, the

court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). 

In this case, Plaintiff’s blatant abuse of the discovery process by fashioning lewd,

irrelevant, threatening and harassing questions on Defendants is sufficiently egregious to warrant

the issuance of a protective order. Defendants will be relieved from having to respond to written

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

5

discovery that is irrelevant to the claim at issue in this action. This does not in any way grant

Plaintiff leave to submit further discovery beyond the number of discovery requests allowed

under the rules. As noted above, the rules allow for only 25 written interrogatories without leave

of court. Plaintiff must seek leave of court and must make a “particularized showing” why

further discovery is necessary. In the event such leave is granted and later abused by Plaintiff,

the Court will consider, upon written Motion, whether Defendants should be required to respond,

issue subsequent protective orders or consider any appropriate sanctions related to an abuse of

the process. 

Plaintiff’s is warned that his abuse of the discovery process thus far warrants sanctions

under Rule 37. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, knowing what age the Defendants stopped

wetting the bed, stopped breast-feeding, ate for lunch on a given day and the names of their

friends is wholly irrelevant to determining whether the Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff in

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

The Court has the “inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully . . .

engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” AnheuserBusch, Inc. V. Natural Beverage Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995). The litigation process

and mechanism of discovery is not provided to engage in harassing and menacing behavior of

opposing parties and will not be tolerated by the Court. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that such

continued behavior may result in the imposition of any and all sanctions within the power of the

Court. This includes the imposition of fines, attorney fees, and involuntary dismissal of the

action. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132 (Court may award

attorney fees as a sanction against a party who has acted in bad faith [vexatiously, wantonly or

for oppressive reasons]); Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 655-56 (9th Cir. 1990) (providing

a district court has discretion to impose the extreme sanction of dismissal if there has been

“flagrant, bad faith disregard of discovery duties.”). 

//

//

//

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

6

E. Conclusion

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion For Order to Submit to Physical and Mental Examination is

DENIED; 

2. The Motion Demanding Additional Parties is DENIED;

3. The Motion to Compel is DENIED;

4. The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 60 Filed 03/06/06 Page 6 of 6