Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00891/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00891-2/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH C. SISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT BROWN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[ECF NO. 27]

Plaintiff Joseph Sisneros, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

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

alleging that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference

to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they placed

him in a cell with another inmate, Jesus Gomez, who viciously

attacked Plaintiff. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1.) Defendants Brown and

Mendez filed a pre-answer motion for summary judgment for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56 and Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.

2014) (en banc) [ECF No. 9]. Defendants Davis and Krittman filed a

motion to dismiss [ECF No. 10]. Plaintiff has opposed both motions

[ECF Nos. 14, 18, 20, 22, 29], and Defendants filed a combined

1 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-RBB Document 30 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 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

reply [ECF No. 16]. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on

Defendants’ motions.

On April 8, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to

Compel Discovery [ECF No. 24], explaining that Plaintiff’s request

was premature under the Ninth Circuit case of Albino v. Baca, 747

F.3d at 1170. (Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. Compel Discovery 2, ECF

No. 25.) The Court explained that the discovery request was

unrelated to the issue of administrative exhaustion. (Id.)

The Court has received another document from Plaintiff

entitled “Motion to Compel Discovery,” which was filed nunc pro

tunc to April 13, 2015 [ECF No. 27]. In this Motion, Sisneros

again seeks information that goes to the merits of his claim, such

as his alleged attacker’s medical and housing history. (Pl.’s Mot.

Compel Discovery 1-2, ECF No. 27.) Because the Court has not yet

decided the issue of administrative exhaustion, discovery related

to the merits of the suit is not appropriate at this time. Albino,

747 F.3d at 1170. Thus, for the same reasons stated in the Court’s

April 8, 2015 Order, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [ECF

No. 27] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 ______________________________ Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Curiel

All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\1983\PRISONER\SISNEROS891\Order denying 2d motion to compel.wpd 2 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-RBB Document 30 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 2