Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00856/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00856-1/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 09-cv-856 WQH NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HARVEY MERCHANT

Plaintiff,

v.

H. LOPEZ, P. WEITZEIL

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09-856 WQH (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO TAKE

WRITTEN DEPOSITIONS OF PRISON

EMPLOYEES

[Docket No. 18.]

[Docket No. 19.]

Plaintiff, a state prisoner pursuing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed two

separate Motions for Leave to Take Written Depositions from prison employees. For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES the motions.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURE & FACTS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), alleges in his § 1983 Complaint that

Correctional Food Managers at Calipatria State Prison violated his constitutional rights when they

conspired to fire him from his culinary position in retaliation to a discrimination grievance Plaintiff filed

against the managers. Defendants filed their Answer on January 18, 2010 [docket no. 14], and the Court

issued a Scheduling Order on January 21, 2010 [docket no. 17].

Plaintiff is now requesting leave of Court to take written depositions from five individuals: 

Correctional Food Supervisor Sequra, Correctional Officer Rivas, Correctional Officer Perez,

Correctional Sergeant Zamora, and Supervising Records Officer Vicky Trejo. He also asks the Court to

order Defendants to pay for “expenditures to take the necessary written depositions in preparation for

Case 3:09-cv-00856-WQH-NLS Document 20 Filed 03/08/10 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 1

 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines “deponent” as: “1. One who testifies by

deposition. 2. A witness who gives written testimony for later use in court.” 

2 09-cv-856 WQH NLS

trial.” 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states his motion is made pursuant to Rule 31(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Rule 31 outlines the procedure for depositions by written questions. Specifically, subsection

(a)(2) states the following:

A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent

with Rule 26(b)(2):

¶(B) if the deponent1

 is confined in prison.

The individuals Plaintiff wishes to depose do not appear to be people “confined in prison.” Therefore,

Plaintiff does not require leave of Court to depose the named individuals by written questions. He is

permitted to conduct discovery while incarcerated, without leave of the Court, as long as he complies

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules and applicable prison regulations. 

Plaintiff’s request for payment of his deposition fees by Defendants is based on his IFP status. 

However, while the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. §1915, allows a federal court to waive the filing fee for an

indigent prisoner’s civil rights complaint, it does not require the court to order financing of the entire

action or waiver of fees or expenses for witnesses. Hadsell v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Serv., 107 F.3d

750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,

211-12 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Plaintiff is thus financially responsible for procuring a deposition

officer to transcribe the witnesses’ testimony, for notice and delivery of the questions, and for filing of

the deposition. See Rule 31. 

III. CONLUSION

Because Plaintiff does not require leave of court to depose the individuals in his motion who are

not confined in prison, the Court DENIES his motion as MOOT. Plaintiff’s request that the Court

order Defendants to pay the costs associated with conducting the depositions is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2010.

NITA L. STORMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00856-WQH-NLS Document 20 Filed 03/08/10 Page 2 of 2