Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-5/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

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 seeks an order compelling Defendants Heet, Barrios, Hetmer, Kane, Ryan and Fizer

to provide complete responses to interrogatories. (Doc. 113) Defendant has filed a Response

and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs. 141, 147)

I. Background

Plaintiff, 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 dual request to exceed the page limit and

file the 37-page Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days thereafter. (Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff, a maximum security inmate housed in maximum security units of maximum

security prison complexes within the Arizona Department of Corrections, filed a First Amended

Complaint on October 2, 2012. (Docs. 8; 141 at 1) Plaintiff raised two grounds for relief against

seventeen separate defendants. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged he is being deprived of basic

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 8
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

1Thirteen defendants have answered. The fourteenth, Rita Duarte, was dismissed without

prejudice, on March 13, 2014, for failure to serve pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 134)

- 2 -

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. Plaintiff claims that, for nine months, he was housed in a cell

in which the base of the toilet leaked every time it was used, which caused flooding, and he was

not provided adequate supplies to address the problem. He further claims that when he was

eventually moved to a different cell in a different housing unit, the walls of the cell appeared

to have blood and dried feces on them. He claims that, during the several months he was there,

he repeatedly requested supplies to clean his cell but received adequate supplies on only one

occasion. Plaintiff also claims that outdoor recreation cages and an outer stairwell were covered

with cat waste and pigeon droppings. He claims these contaminants were then tracked back into

his cell. Plaintiff claims he informed Defendants of these issues but they failed to take any

action to resolve the problems.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleged that 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.1

 (Doc.

9 at 15) Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, along with declaratory

and injunctive relief. (Doc. 8 at 20)

II. Motion to Compel

In the February 6, 2014 Motion to Compel, Plaintiff identifies thirty-three

interrogatories to which he claims Defendants failed to adequately respond. (Doc. 113) He asks

the Court to order more complete responses. Defendants argue in the response that their

responses are sufficient and any objections asserted are proper. 

A. Legal Standards for Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 2 of 8
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 any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations

imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). These limitations reflect that, in addition

to being relevant, discovery must also be proportional to the issues and needs of the case. Kaiser

v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 1856578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013) (citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of

discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rules if it determines

that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Thus, the court must “strike[ ] the proper balance between permitting relevant

discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is proportional to the

case.” Kaiser, 2013 WL at *3. Moreover, “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to

permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon

the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant.” Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v.

Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application

1. Defendant Heet

Plaintiff first challenges two interrogatory responses from Defendant Assistant Deputy

Warden Heet. The Court finds Defendant Heet’s responses are sufficient. In response to

Plaintiff’s question, Heet identifies the procedure by which an inmate can request a mop from

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 3 of 8
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 -

the floor officer. Plaintiff’s motion complains that Heet failed to identify “all documents

specifically referenc[ing the] mopping of cells” is without merit in light of the vagueness of the

request. (Doc. 114-2 at 2) Likewise, Heet sufficiently responded that documentation of cell

cleaning was completed on pod sheets and correctional service journals. The Court will not

compel further responses from Defendant Heet.

2. Defendant Barrios

Next, Plaintiff challenges Defendant Deputy Warden Barrios’s responses to certain

interrogatories. Defendant Barrios sufficiently responded to interrogatories four and five.

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for mopping procedures, Barrios referenced housing unit post

orders, which specify expectations for cell cleaning. Regarding Plaintiff’s extremely broad

request to identify any and all documents pertaining to sanitation at Plaintiff’s housing unit,

Barrios identified correctional service journals, and the information contained therein. He also

referred to individual inmate detention records, which document inmate receipt of cleaning

supplies. The Court will not compel additional responses.

With regard to interrogatories 12 and 13, Barrios properly responded to the questions,

which pertained to the steps taken to ensure compliance with cell cleaning procedures. The

Court will not order further responses to those questions, nor to interrogatory 22, which again

deals with oversight. 

3. Defendant Hetmer

Next, Plaintiff challenges Defendant Hetmer’s responses to interrogatories 16, 17 and

24. The Court finds that Hetmer’s response to the questions about mopping and cleaning

procedures at Central Unit to be sufficient. He explains there is a cell cleaning schedule that is

overseen by sergeants on each shift and cell block tours are done to ensure compliance with cell

cleaning. He also states that Plaintiff was scheduled to receive cleaning supplies on Thursdays

during the day shift. Likewise, Hetmer’s identification of five separate work orders between

August and December 2011 pertaining to the toilet in Plaintiff’s cell was a proper response to

Plaintiff’s question. The Court will not compel any additional responses from Defendant

Hetmer.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 4 of 8
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 -

4. Defendant Kane

Plaintiff next challenges Defendant Kane’s responses to interrogatories 16, 21 and 22.

The Court finds Kane, the Central Unit Assistant Deputy Warden, properly responded to

Plaintiff’s question concerning compliance with sanitation procedures. Kane addressed how

cleaning schedules were posted on bulletin boards and how walk-throughs are performed to

observe conditions and operations. Regarding who was responsible for reviewing cell inspection

records, Kane referred Plaintiff to a policy, presumably one that explains the cell inspection

review policy. Plaintiff does not assert otherwise. Finally, Kane properly referred Plaintiff to

records previously disclosed to Plaintiff pursuant to a request for production when asked to

identify all cell inspection records. The Court finds no basis to compel additional responses

from Defendant Kane.

5. Defendant Ryan

Plaintiff next challenges Defendant Ryan’s responses to interrogatories 10, 13, 15, 16,

17, 19 and 23. Director Ryan’s response to Plaintiff’s question regarding the potential for, or

incidents of, a MRSA (“methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus”) infection was sufficient.

Defendant Ryan, the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, said he knows it has

occurred, the potential exists, but he is not familiar with specific conditions that may increase

or diminish the risk. Regarding Plaintiff’s four questions pertaining to cleaning supplies and cell

cleaning schedules, Director Ryan properly explained that the day-to-day operations of the

Arizona prisons, including cell cleaning issues, are delegated to the wardens and he has little

knowledge of those issues. In response to another interrogatory regarding a specific grievance

response, Director Ryan referred Plaintiff to the response, explaining that it speaks for itself.

Lastly, in response to another extremely overbroad question in which Plaintiff asks Director

Ryan to identify specific documents, Director Ryan responds that he does not have sufficient

personal knowledge to respond because the documents pertain to the day-to-day operation of

the prisons which is delegated to the wardens. The Court finds no basis to compel additional

responses from Defendant Ryan.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 5 of 8
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 -

6. Defendant Fizer

Lastly, Plaintiff challenges Defendant Deputy Warden Fizer’s responses to

interrogatories 4, 5, 7, 8, 9-14, and 16. In the first and second questions, Plaintiff asked Fizer

to explain any and all priorities and funding issues that Fizer referenced in a response to

Plaintiff regarding a request to repair or replace his toilet. He also asked about the cost of

repairing and replacing a toilet. In addition to objecting, Fizer responded that there are a

multitude of demands on prison budgets that Plaintiff does need not know about, including that

the replacement of a toilet in Plaintiff’s housing unit costs more than $4,000 each. While this

seems to be an incredibly high figure, it is Fizer’s response and may be properly used at trial

for impeachment if it is not accurate. Without more evidence, it is not the province of the trial

court to determine the credibility of an adverse party’s answers to discovery requests at the

discovery stage provided such answers are complete and responsive to the discovery request.

Fizer’s response is sufficient for now. 

“Complete and accurate responses to discovery are required for the proper functioning

of our system of justice. . . [and] parties have a duty to provide true, explicit, responsive,

complete and candid answers to discovery[.]” Wagner v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 606,

609–610 (D. Neb. 2001) (citations omitted). “Providing false or incomplete discovery responses

violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subjects the offending party and its counsel

to sanctions.” Id. at 610. One of the primary “purpose[s] of discovery is to make a trial ‘less a

game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to

the fullest practicable extent possible’. . . .” Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc., 246

F.R.D. 29, 32 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, Rule 26(e)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

mandates that a party “[i]s under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an

interrogatory . . . if the party learns that the response is in some material respect . . . incorrect

and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other

parties during the discovery process or in writing.” If there is intentional bad faith in answering

discovery requests, sanctions may be appropriate as “[l]itigation is not a game. It is the

time-honored method of seeking the truth, finding the truth, and doing justice.” Haeger v.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 -

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 906 F.Supp.2d 938, 940 (D. Ariz. 2012).

Plaintiff also asked whether the Central Unit was “adequately funded” during the

relevant time frame and if not, whether Fizer notified others. Fizer’s response referring to his

previous response in which he said he did not believe the Central Unit had a funding problem.

Additionally, in response to Plaintiff’s question regarding whether the Central Unit tracked

work orders, Fizer’s responded “yes,” and directed Plaintiff to work orders produced pursuant

to a request of production. Fizer’s responses are sufficient. 

In response to Plaintiff’s question about the number of times a work order was

submitted on the toilet in Plaintiff’s cell from ninety days before Plaintiff arrived in the cell to

when it was repaired or replace, Fizer objected, stating it would require speculation on his part.

He further stated that as the deputy warden, he did not keep track of such things. The Court will

not compel Fizer to respond further to something about which he does not have specific

knowledge. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s question about the identities of any inmates housed in the cell

after it was “initially realized” that the toilet needed to be repaired, Fizer properly objects on

vagueness grounds. Also, Fizer correctly explains that as a maximum security inmate, Plaintiff

is not entitled to the “name(s) and number(s)” of any inmates housed in the cell, as his question

requests, for legitimate security and appropriate penological reasons. Courts are required to

consider the competing interests of the parties in deciding discovery requests and defer to the

expertise of prison officials in matters of prison security. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725

n. 13 (2005); United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff also asked about Central Unit’s procedures for mopping the cells. In

response, Fizer explains the cell cleaning process at Central Unit, including the existence of a

cleaning schedule, distribution of supplies, and oversight to ensure compliance. Fizer’s response

is sufficient. Similarly, Fizer’s response that he does not have first-hand knowledge of what

specific cleaning supplies are available for inmate use, is also sufficient. Plaintiff apparently

does not believe Fizer is providing a truthful response, but the Court has no basis to conclude

Fizer is not being truthful.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 -

With regard to Plaintiff’s overly broad request in Interrogatory No. 13 for “any and

all ADC documents you were aware of that in any way relates to cell sanitation to include

policies, procedures, protocols, post orders, logs, correctional standards, directives, audit

reports, Arizona and Federal law, schedules, individual inmate detention records, budget

records, supplies purchasing records, [and] supplies inventory records,” the Court will order no

further response. Plaintiff’s request is disproportional to the issues in this case. The same is true

with regard to Plaintiff’s request for an equally-long laundry list of documents pertaining to

sanitation of the outside areas of the Central Unit. Fizer will not be directed to respond to these

two requests in Interrogatories No. 13 and 14.

Finally, Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Fizer’s response to his request to explain the

circumstances that led to Plaintiff’s removal from the “Max Phase Program.” Fizer stated he has

no personal knowledge pertaining to the information requested. Fizer claims that “[a]part from

the problems with [Plaintiff’s] discovery (i.e. compound lines of inquiry, asking for production

of documents in an interrogatory, and failing to identify the ‘relevant time frame’), [Plaintiff]

is simply upset that Fizer either does not remember or lacks the personal knowledge [Plaintiff]

believes he should remember or know.” (Doc. 141 at 8) The Court has no basis or evidence to

conclude Fizer is not being truthful and will not order a further response. The Court, therefore,

finds no basis to compel additional responses from Defendant Fizer.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 113, is

DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of July, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 158 Filed 07/07/14 Page 8 of 8