Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01550/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01550-19/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE WELLS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

T. CAGLE, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-1550-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

(Doc. 60)

Plaintiff Andre Wells (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2011. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants T. Cagle and R. Perez for violations of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for sanctions due to Defendants 

purported “refusal to [a]bide by discovery rules and the duty to disclose.” (Doc. 60). 

Defendants opposed the motion on May 16, 2014. (Doc. 68). 

On December 19, 2014, the Court granted a 90-day stay in this action to allow Plaintiff 

an opportunity to gather materials, secure his legal documents, and marshal evidence of his 

mental status for any renewed motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 100). By operation 

of the Court’s order, the stay has been lifted and the motion for sanctions is deemed submitted. 

Case 1:11-cv-01550-LJO-BAM Document 126 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Local Rule 230(l). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions 

shall be denied. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes sanctions for the failure to comply with a 

discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). However, Plaintiff’s moving papers do not identify 

any discovery order that Defendants have failed to heed. In the absence of noncompliance, there 

is no basis to award sanctions. 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery responses, Plaintiff also has failed to 

identify the relevant disclosures or discovery responses at issue. Although Plaintiff generally 

references interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for the production of documents, 

this is not sufficient. The Court cannot ascertain whether Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed 

to provide disclosures or discovery responses or if Plaintiff is merely challenging Defendants’ 

responses to discovery. In the absence of this information, the Court cannot compel disclosure 

or direct further discovery responses. See, e.g., Price v. Cunningham, 1:08-cv-00425-AWIBAM, 2012 WL 5308337, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (“If Defendants object to one of 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his motion to compel to demonstrate 

why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must inform the Court which discovery 

requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the 

Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants’ objections are not 

meritorious.”). 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01550-LJO-BAM Document 126 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2