Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02412/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02412-6/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 

LLOYD M. THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. SWARTHOUT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2412-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to compel further responses to three of his requests for 

written discovery. ECF No. 74. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 79. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

I. Request for Admission No. 9 

The court granted plaintiff’s prior motion to compel a response to Request for Admissions 

No. 9, which asked defendant Austin to “[a]dmit that the taking of an inmates weight during 

dental triage is not part of dental procedures.” See ECF No. 71. The court directed defendant 

Austin to respond, but cautioned that if answering would require her to speculate, she may so 

state in her response. Id. Plaintiff takes issues with defendant Austin’s supplemental response, 

which states that she cannot speculate as to whether the taking of an inmate’s weight during 

dental triage is or is not part of dental procedures. As this response is consistent with the court’s 

directive, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is denied. 

Case 2:12-cv-02412-MCE-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/17/16 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 

2 

II. Request for Production No. 5 

The court granted plaintiff’s prior motion to compel a response to Request for Production 

No. 5. RFP No. 5 sought documents that contain plaintiff’s request (or CDCR form 7362) for a 

Boost liquid nutritional drink. See ECF No. 71 at 4. Defendants’ supplemental response states 

that “Plaintiff did not submit a CDC 7362 requesting Boost liquid nutritional drink, and 

accordingly, Defendants Austin and Hickerson are informed and believe that no documents 

responsive to this request exist.” ECF No. 74 at 19. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this 

response is deficient. Therefore, his motion to compel is denied as to this request. 

To the extent plaintiff requests permission to request additional discovery in light of 

defendants’ response, his request is denied for lack of good cause, as plaintiff could have 

reasonably anticipated that there would be no documents responsive to his request. 

III. Interrogatory No. 9 

Interrogatory No. 9 asked if there is any policy or other directive to dentists, to require 

them to have inmates seek liquid nutritional supplement prescription renewals from their primary 

care physician. Defendant Austin previously provided a response to this interrogatory that led 

plaintiff to believe that “a documented policy exists.” See ECF No. 71 at 4. In its order on 

plaintiff’s prior motion to compel, the court construed the interrogatory as a request for 

production of documents, and ordered defendant Austin to respond accordingly. ECF No. 71 at 4. 

Austin has since produced the documents. Plaintiff now objects to Austin’s production, asserting 

that none of the documents produced “answer the question plaintiff put forth.” ECF No. 74 at 5. 

As noted, however, Austin previously provided a response to the question posed by plaintiff in 

responding to his interrogatory. Austin’s answer to the interrogatory disclosed the existence of 

documents which have now been produced. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied 

as to this request. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-02412-MCE-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/17/16 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 

3 

IV. Order 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 74) is 

denied. 

DATED: February 16, 2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-02412-MCE-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 3