Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00891/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00891-1/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. 24]

Plaintiff Joseph Sisneros, a state prisoner incarcerated at

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California,

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendant correctional and mental

health 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.) 

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Brown and

Mendez’s 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

1 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-RBB Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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

banc) [ECF No. 9]. Defendants Mendez and Brown argue that

Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies

against them and seek summary judgment on that basis. (Defs. Brown

& Mendez’s Mot. Summ. J. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6, ECF No. 9.) 

Also pending before the Court is Defendants Davis and Krittman's

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

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

[ECF No. 16]. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery was filed

nunc pro tunc to March 30, 2015 [ECF No. 24]. 

As the Ninth Circuit recently instructed in Albino, any

disputed issues regarding administrative exhaustion “should be

decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner's

claim.” 747 F.3d at 1170. “If discovery is appropriate, the

district court may in its discretion limit discovery to evidence

concerning exhaustion, leaving until later-—if it becomes

necessary—-discovery directed to the merits of the suit.” Id.

(citing Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). 

In his Motion to Compel, Sisneros seeks information about his

alleged attacker’s illness and medical history, such as a list of

medications Gomez had taken for the past six years, and other

discovery “for the sole purpose of proving [his] case.” (Pl.’s

Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff’s request is unrelated to

the issue of administrative exhaustion. His motion to compel

merits discovery is premature; Defendants’ substantive motions are

pending and no answer has been filed. If Defendants’ motions are

denied and they are directed to answer the Complaint, discovery

will proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

2 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-RBB Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

[ECF No. 24] is DENIED at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 ______________________________ Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Curiel

All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\1983\PRISONER\SISNEROS891\Order denying motion to compel.wpd 3 14cv891 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-RBB Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 3