Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 Plaintiff has filed six lawsuits in this division of the District Court of Arizona in the

last seven years. The others are CV-06-1879-PHX-SMM (on appeal); CV-07-1070-PHX-SMM

(ECV) (on appeal); CV-09-1363-PHX-SMM (LOA) (on appeal); CV-09-2152-PHX-SMM

(LOA) (open case at trial level); CV-10-1197-PHX-SMM (LOA) (case final, no appeal). Each

judgment entered in these cases was adverse to Plaintiff.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1729-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in which

Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant Ryan to produce documents responsive to

his requests for production. (Doc.48) Defendant Ryan has filed a Response and Plaintiff has

filed a Reply. (Docs. 58, 63) On December 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Pleading

in Support of His Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 92)

I. Background

Plaintiff, a frequent filer1

 and proceeding pro se, commenced this prisoner civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 14, 2012, by lodging a Complaint. (Docs. 1-2)

Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. (Docs. 3, 6) On

September 21, 2012, the assigned District Judge denied Plaintiff’s request to exceed the page

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 94 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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 -

limit and file the Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days thereafter. (Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2012. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff

raised two grounds for relief against seventeen separate defendants. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged

he is being deprived of basic necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including

inadequate plumbing in his cell, unsanitary conditions in his cell and other areas, and the failure

to provide cleaning supplies to address the unsanitary conditions. In Count II, Plaintiff alleged

prison officials retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for filing a previous

federal civil rights lawsuit. The District Judge screened the First Amended Complaint in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) on February 19, 2013. (Doc. 9) The District Judge

dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim, along with three defendants, but ordered fourteen

defendants to answer the allegations in Count I. (Doc. 9 at 15) 

II. Motion to Compel

In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Ryan to produce

documents responsive to his eight requests for production. Defendant Ryan’s Responses to

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production, a copy of which is attached to the Motion to Compel,

reflect that, while Defendant objected to all of the requests for various reasons, Defendant

produced 19 documents that he claims are responsive to two of Plaintiff’s requests. (Doc. 48

at 9-32) 

Defendant contends, inter alia, the Motion to Compel should be denied because

Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) and Rule 7.2(j) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”). Rule

37(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a motion to compel “must include a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to

make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” The Local Rules

reiterate this certification requirement and further provide that “[a]ny discovery motion brought

before the Court without prior personal consultation with the other party and a sincere effort to

resolve the matter, may result in sanctions.” LRCiv 7.2(j).

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 94 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Regarding his obligation to confer in good faith, Plaintiff attaches to his Motion to

Compel a letter to Defendant’s counsel, dated September 19, 2013, in which he expresses his

dissatisfaction with Defendant’s responses to the requests for production. (Doc. 48-1 at 20)

Plaintiff also requests a teleconference with Defendant’s counsel to “confer in good faith and

attempt to resolve the dispute.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel also includes a certification pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(j),

explaining his attempt to confer with Defendant’s counsel. (Doc. 48-1 at 18) Plaintiff asserts

Defendant’s counsel failed to respond to his request to confer. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel

apparently failed to review these attachments because he argues in the Response that Plaintiff

failed to comply with the certification and conferral requirements. (Doc. 58 at 6) Moreover,

Defendant’s counsel presents nothing to show he did respond to Plaintiff’s attempt to confer

about the dispute. For these reasons, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff failed to comply with

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) is without merit.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff, an experienced pro se litigant, has not demonstrated

compliance with a different requirement pertaining to motions to compel. LRCiv 37.1 provides

that a motion to compel discovery shall “set forth, separately from a memorandum of law, the

following in separate, distinct, numbered paragraphs:

(1) the question propounded, the interrogatory submitted, the designation 

requested or the inspection requested;

(2) the answer, designation or response received; and

(3) the reason(s) why said answer, designation, or response is deficient.” 

LRCiv 37.1(a). Civil Local Rule 37.1(a) applies to all pro se litigants, including prisoners. See

Aros v. Robinson, 2011 WL 643386, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2011) (“Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with [LRCiv 37.1(a)] provides an independent sufficient basis to deny his Motion to

Compel. ”). The requirements of this Local Rule do not apply only “where there has been a

complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request.” LRCiv 37.1(b).

 A district court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force of law.”

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). They “are binding upon

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 94 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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 Plaintiff’s recently Supplemental Pleading in Support of His Motion to Compel

Discovery, doc. 92, also fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1(a).

- 4 -

the parties and upon the court, and a departure from local rules that affects substantial rights

requires reversal.” Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349,

1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A departure is justified only if the

effect is so slight and unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook it.” Id. (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). “Anyone appearing before the court is bound by these Local

Rules[,] including “[p]arties not represented by an attorney unless the context requires

otherwise.” LRCiv 83.3(c)(1).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1(a). Plaintiff’s motion

does not set forth, separately from a memorandum of law, in separate, distinct, numbered

paragraphs, the documents requested, the response received and the reasons why the response

is deficient. Although Plaintiff attached to his motion a copy of Defendant Ryan’s responses to

Plaintiff’s requests for production, which included the original requests, Plaintiff did not do

what the rule requires by explaining, with respect to each response, why it is deficient. This

requirement enables the Court to address the merits of each request and response individually.

Much of what Plaintiff argues in the Motion to Compel pertains generally to the admissibility

of the documents requested and how he was able to obtain similar documents in prior cases.

LRCiv 37.1(a) requires more. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1(a), and it will be denied on that basis.2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 48, is DENIED

without prejudice. Defense counsel shall promptly respond to Plaintiff’s letter in a good faith

attempt to avoid judicial involvement in this discovery dispute or narrow the issues upon which

the parties disagree.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 94 Filed 01/08/14 Page 4 of 4