Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03252/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03252-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A USM-285 Process Receipt And Return from the U.S. Marshal is prepared for each

defendant on whom service of process is attempted and shows the Marshal's efforts to serve that

defendant. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE HARRY PAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. 

OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-3252 SI (pr)

ORDER 

Lawrence Harry Pamer, an inmate currently housed at the High Desert State Prison, filed

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found cognizable a claim for

deliberate indifference to safety and a claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs and

ordered service on eight individual defendants. The matter is now before the court to deal with

service of process, discovery, and scheduling issues. 

 

A. Unserved Defendants

Four of the defendants (i.e., Wittenberg, Lucine, Clark and Jiminez) have appeared in this

action. The other four defendants (i.e., Lara, Lewis, Martinez and Lustman) could not be served

with process by the U.S. Marshal based on the information plaintiff provided. The USM-2851

for C/O Lara stated that service was attempted at Salinas Valley and that the Marshal was unable

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 26 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to locate the individual; more information was needed, such as a first name. (Docket # 19.) The

USM-285 for Dr. Lillian Lustman indicated that the Marshal was informed that she had

transferred to CMF-Vacaville, that he was unable to serve her at CMF-Vacaville, and that the

CMF-Vacaville litigation coordinator informed the Marshal there was no such person at that

facility. (Docket # 21.) The USM-285 for defendant sergeant Martinez indicated that the

Marshal was unable to serve him/her at Salinas Valley because more information was needed

to locate him/her. (Docket # 16.) The USM-285 for C/O Lewis indicated that the Marshal was

unable to serve him/her at Salinas Valley and the litigation coordinator indicated there was no

record of this individual and that he was unable to locate the individual. (Docket # 15.) The

incident that forms the basis for the complaint occurred more than six years ago, so it is not

surprising that some of the defendants (especially those identified by last names only) cannot

be located. 

In light of the foregoing service problems, the court will require plaintiff to provide full

names and addresses for the four defendants who were not served. Plaintiff must provide a

current address for defendants Lara, Lewis, Martinez and Lustman where each can be served

with process and must provide a full name for defendants Lara, Lewis and Martinez. Plaintiff

must diligently search for these defendants' current addresses and full names. He might, for

example, write to or call the personnel offices at the prison and the CDC. Although it may be

difficult to locate the defendants if they are no longer employed by the CDC, finding them

remains plaintiff's responsibility, not the court's. Plaintiff must provide to the court a full name

and current address for each of these defendants no later than September 8, 2006. If plaintiff

does not provide the necessary information for service on each of these defendants by the

deadline, or the Marshal is unable to serve the defendants at the addresses provided, they will

be dismissed without prejudice from this action. 

Plaintiff has filed a "motion for appointment of agent to receive service and pleadings of

relating documents for discovery" in which he asks the court to order an agent, such as the

Attorney General or CDC, to accept service on the unserved defendants. The motion is

DENIED. (Docket # 24.) There is no evidence that any unserved defendant has appointed any

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 26 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

agent, let alone the Attorney General or CDC, to receive service of process. The employer of

an individual defendant sued in his individual capacity is not authorized to accept service of

process on the employee's behalf. The court will not designate an agent to act on behalf of the

unserved defendants as a solution for plaintiff's failure to fully identify and provide current

addresses for them. 

B. Discovery

Plaintiff filed a motion for order to produce and perpetuate documents. The motion is

DENIED as frivolous. (Docket # 25.) The motion obviously has been recycled from another

case, as is evident from the fact that it requests numerous documents that were generated at

Pelican Bay State Prison and apply to Pelican Bay, while the events that gave rise to plaintiff's

complaint took place while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley and have no known connection

to Pelican Bay. The motion also makes many assertions that seem extremely unlikely to apply

in the current case, such as the assertions that there is an operative complaint that alleged

retaliation, see Motion, p. 2:13-15, that the documentation will be voluminous and require

experts to sift through it, id. at 2: 21 and 3:11, and that there are exhibits in evidence, see id. at

p. 130. Plaintiff is cautioned that even pro se prisoners are expected to read through any

document they file and they can be sanctioned for frivolous filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Plaintiff also is cautioned that discovery requests should not be filed with the court. The

court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there

is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses

normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they

are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a

discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider

asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have enough time or

resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their

very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 26 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the

parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is

a prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and

defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format

of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties

must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any

discovery dispute. 

C. Scheduling On Dispositive Motions

The defendants who have appeared in this action have filed an ex parte request for an

extension of time to file their dispositive motion. Upon due consideration of the request and

the accompanying declaration of attorney Sara Ugaz, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket

# 22.) The court vacates the existing briefing schedule and now sets the following briefing

schedule:

1. Defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion no later than July 28,

2006.

 2. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the dispositive motion no later than

August 31, 2006.

3. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they must file and serve their reply brief

no later than September 15, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 26 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4