Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01064-2/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 

LIBRADO SOLANO, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEREZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1064-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 

production (RFPs). ECF No. 32. Defendants1 oppose the motion. ECF No. 33. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

RFP No. 1 requests plaintiff’s medical records from April 23, 2013 through December 19, 

2013. Defendants objected on the grounds that plaintiff must follow the procedures outlined for 

inmates at California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3450(a), which provides that “[a]ny 

person on whom the department maintains a record or file containing personal information has 

the right to inspect their record . . . .” Defense counsel also explained to plaintiff that plaintiff can 

 1

 Only defendants George, Perez, and Peterson have appeared in this action. ECF No. 26. 

The remaining defendant, Eslami appears to have been served but has not appeared. ECF No. 27. 

The court notes that failure to answer or otherwise file a proper response to a complaint within the 

time required is grounds for the entry of default under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Case 2:15-cv-01064-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 06/21/16 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 

make a request at his current institution for an opportunity to inspect his medical records. ECF 

No. 34, ¶ 3. Plaintiff provides no argument as to how defendants’ response is nonresponsive or 

why he is entitled to a further response from defendants. Defendants’ proposal for how plaintiff 

may access his medical records appears reasonable and plaintiff’s motion as to this request is 

denied without prejudice to renewal if following the procedure as proposed by defendants does 

not result in access to the documents. 

RFP No. 4 requests “rules, regulations [and] policies” related to “medical treatment after 

injuries.” Defendants objected to the request as overbroad. Nevertheless, defendants produced 

the following documents: (1) California Correctional Health Care Services Chapter 4, titled 

“Access to Primary Care,” (2) Folsom State Prison’s Operational Procedures # 145, # 91 and # 

112 related to inmates returning from outside medical appointments, (3) training materials from 

third-parties titled “Basic First Aid Instruction Manual” and (4) “The CPR, AED & First Aid For 

Community Responds Student Manual.” After meeting and conferring with plaintiff, defendants 

understood that plaintiff “may want records related to hernia disability accommodations, not just 

‘medical treatment after injuries.’” ECF No. 34, ¶ 4. In light of this clarification, defendants 

intend to supplement their response with the Armstrong Remedial Plans from January 3, 2001 and 

December 1, 2010. Plaintiff provides no argument as to why he is entitled to any further 

response, and his motion is therefore denied as to this request. 

RFP No. 5 requests training materials related to “emergency medical procedures when 

inmates are injured.” Defendants’ response explained their position that a chronic hernia 

problem, as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, is not a “medical emergency.” As a result, they 

produced training materials from third-parties titled “Basic First Aid Instruction Manual” and 

“The CPR, AED & First Aid For Community Responds Student Manual.” Defendants’ response 

is not deficient on its face and plaintiff fails to articulate any basis for compelling a further 

response. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01064-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 06/21/16 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 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 32) is denied. 

DATED: June 21, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01064-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 3