Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02907/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02907-14/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 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. VEAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-2907-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 4, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants. ECF No. 57. The 

district judge adopted those recommendations on February 21, 2013, and judgment was entered in 

favor of defendants. ECF Nos. 63, 64. Plaintiff appealed. ECF No. 66. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff had not been provided adequate opportunity to 

conduct discovery and vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. ECF 

No. 70. In accord with the opinion of the Ninth Circuit, the court issues the following discovery 

and scheduling order. 

I. Background

This action proceeds on the amended complaint filed December 14, 2011. ECF No. 16. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants Andreasen and Veal were deliberately indifferent to his serious 

medical needs while he was in administrative segregation under “contraband surveillance watch” 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 6
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

from July 30, 2006 to August 7, 2006. ECF No. 16 at 5-6. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he 

“was placed in leg restraints and leg irons” in a locked cell without a working toilet, “left in full 

restraints and denied all medical attention for six days,” even after his hemodialysis access 

became clotted. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to remain in chains and under a 

bright beam light, 24 hours a day. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that it was defendant Veal’s 

“action” to leave him shackled in the cell without medical treatment. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Andreasen ignored his serious medical needs during this 

period when he “knowingly kept me in restraints and shakles [sic] for” six days without medical 

treatment. Id. Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant Andreasen delayed the necessary 

declotting treatment after his access became clotted on August 1, 2006 until August 7, 2006. Id.

On November 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to compel, complaining that defendants 

had unreasonably refused to respond to his interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests 

for production of documents. ECF No. 35. Defendants had responded to each request with the 

objection that it was “procedurally defective” because it was addressed to more than one 

defendant. Id. at 7-33. They pressed the same argument in opposing the motion to compel. ECF 

No. 38. The court accepted the argument after noting that defense counsel had given plaintiff 

instructions on how to provide separate discovery requests and offered plaintiff a 45-day 

extension of time in which to reformat and reserve the requests. ECF No. 44 at 2-4. Plaintiff had 

not taken defendants up on this offer and argued that he had access to only 20 sheets of paper per 

week. ECF No. 40 at 2. The court concluded that this fact did not justify the granting of the 

motion, because in the 45 days defendants offered to plaintiff he would have had access to 120 

sheets of paper and would have needed at most 31 sheets to serve reformatted discovery requests. 

ECF No. 44 at 3-4. Plaintiff did not attempt further discovery. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 45. In opposing the motion, plaintiff 

stated that he “diligently did all that could be reasonably expected as a pro-se prisoner” but that 

his efforts at discovery had been thwarted. ECF No. 55-1 at 9. He also declared that he “received 

no discovery despite my request for a motion to compel being denied [sic].” ECF No. 55-3 at 7. 

Plaintiff complained that he had diligently requested records he needed “to prove that the orders 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 6
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

to chain me up on 7-30-06 was directly from M. Veal [sic]” and that he “was not able to obtain 

the CMF Operational Procedure Contraband Surveillance Watch” policy. Id. at 7-8. 

The district court granted summary judgment, adopting the assigned magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendation concluding that plaintiff had produced no evidence showing that 

defendant Veal was responsible for plaintiff’s alleged harm. The findings and recommendations 

noted that plaintiff had produced no evidence: (1) showing defendant Veal’s personal 

involvement in plaintiff’s placement on contraband surveillance watch; (2) showing that 

defendant Veal knew that placing plaintiff on contraband surveillance watch would subject 

plaintiff to harm but failed to act to prevent that harm; or (3) showing a policy authored or 

enforced by defendant Veal requiring that inmates be placed on contraband surveillance watch 

regardless of medical condition. ECF No. 57 at 7. It was further found that plaintiff had 

produced no medical evidence supporting his claim that his placement in restraints while on 

contraband surveillance watch had caused his AV graft to become clogged or otherwise caused 

him serious harm. Id. at 8. 

It was further found that plaintiff had produced no evidence showing that defendant 

Andreasen’s response to his medical needs was unreasonable. Id. at 8-9. After summarizing the 

evidence, the court concluded that: 

[P]laintiff has produced no evidence supporting his general assertion that 

defendant Andreasen denied him all medical care while he was on contraband 

surveillance watch or, more specifically, that the declotting procedure needed to 

be performed immediately on August 3rd and that it was not medically reasonable 

for the procedure to be scheduled four days later. Indeed, the evidence shows that 

the graft was successfully declotted 12 days later, after plaintiff consented to be 

treated . . . . 

Id. at 9. The court further found that plaintiff lacked evidence that defendant Andreasen had been 

deliberately indifferent in releasing plaintiff back to administrative segregation, noting that the 

evidence before the court showed that plaintiff had received regular care and that plaintiff had not 

presented evidence that more frequent or otherwise different care was medically necessary or that 

defendant Andreasen was responsible for providing such care. Id. The district judge adopted the 

findings and recommendations and judgment was entered in favor of defendants. ECF Nos. 63, 

64. 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 6
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

In vacating that judgment, the Ninth Circuit concluded that summary judgment was 

entered without providing plaintiff with “an appropriate opportunity to conduct discovery.” ECF 

No. 70 at 2. The appellate court faulted this court for providing “a mere three-and-a-half months 

from the filing of the answer to complete discovery,” denying plaintiff’s motion to compel “even 

though he explained that the prison’s copying quota prevented him from making enough copies to 

serve his discovery requests on time,” and failing to address plaintiff’s statements in his summary 

judgment opposition that he had been unable to obtain the discovery he wanted. Id. at 3. 

According to the Court of Appeals, these statements should have been treated as a request under 

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 4. The appellate court further 

concluded that defendants’ argument in opposing the motion to compel – that joint discovery 

requests may not be served on more than one defendant – was without merit as unsupported by 

both the language of Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. Id. The 

appellate court concluded that plaintiff’s discovery requests 

appear relevant and narrowly tailored. For example, Calloway requested—but 

apparently never received—his complete medical records. Calloway requested 

the California Medical Facility’s (CMF) contraband surveillance watch policy so 

that he could determine precisely what the written policy was and whether warden 

M. Veal was responsible for it. [Footnote omitted] Calloway also requested 

production of other prisoner’s claims against the warden and Dr. Andreasen, 

which might lead to discovery of relevant evidence. 

Id.

II. Future Proceedings

The essence of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit is that defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s 

joint discovery requests was without merit, that defendants should have substantively responded 

to those requests, and that the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to compel those 

responses. Accordingly, the (1) the order of March 19, 2012 (ECF No. 44) as it pertains to the 

motion to compel; (2) the findings and recommendations of December 4, 2012 (ECF No. 57); and 

(3) the order of February 21, 2013 (ECF No. 63) adopting those recommendations, are all 

necessarily vacated by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Further, in light of the analysis by the court of 

appeals, this court now orders the defendants to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

Further, within 30 days of this order, the parties shall file statements indicating what, if 

any, specific additional discovery they intend to pursue and a proposed schedule by which they 

propose to complete that discovery. The statements shall be specific as to the type of discovery 

and the nature of the information that will be sought. Defendants may then renew their motion 

for summary judgment or file a new motion for summary judgment within the time provided 

below. 

III. Order

It is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The order of March 19, 2012 (ECF No. 44) as it pertains to the motion to compel is 

VACATED; 

2. The findings and recommendations of December 4, 2012 (ECF No. 57) are 

VACATED; 

3. The order of February 21, 2013 (ECF No. 63) is VACATED; 

4. Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests of September 13, 2011; 

5. Any motion to compel with regard to defendants’ responses shall be filed within 30 

days of the service of those responses; 

6. The parties shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, file statements indicating 

what, if any, additional discovery they intend to pursue and a proposed deadline by 

which that discovery shall be completed; 

7. If no further discovery is sought, defendants may renew their April 16, 2012 motion 

for summary judgment or file a new motion for summary judgment within 60 days of 

the date of this order; 

8. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from service of such summary judgment motion to file an 

opposition to the motion; and 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

9. Defendants shall have 14 days from service of plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply. 

Dated: July 30, 2014. 

Case 2:09-cv-02907-GEB-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/01/14 Page 6 of 6