Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02554-16/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

 Defendants filed an amended Table of Authorities in support of the summary judgment 1

on March 24, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2554 GEB GGH P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is 1) plaintiff’s January 27, 2006, motion to compel further

discovery; defendants filed an opposition, after which plaintiff filed a reply; 2) plaintiff also, by

motion/declaration, filed on April 17, 2006, apparently pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), asks the

court to “postpone” or continue consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed

on March 23, 2006, for the filing of an opposition, based on plaintiff’s not yet having received 1

all of the discovery responses/production he has sought by his motion to compel. 

\\\\\ 

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 17
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

 This case was originally filed on December 15, 2003. Certain claims/defendants were 2

dismissed from the original complaint with leave to amend granted by Order, filed on March 25,

2004, after which plaintiff filed his now-superseded first amended complaint. 

2

Second Amended Complaint

This action had been proceeding upon a first amended complaint, filed on April

26, 2004, against defendants Mike Knowles, S. J. Vance, J.P. Walker, T. Goughnour, M. Martel,

D. Willey. Upon plaintiff’s filing of a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 2

along with a proposed second amended complaint, on June 7, 2005, the court ordered defendants,

who had previously filed an answer to the first amended complaint, to file a response, which they

did in the form of a statement of non-opposition. The court thereafter granted plaintiff leave to

file the second amended complaint and directed service of process upon one additional

defendant, Cheryl Pliler. See Orders, filed on August 4, 2005, and on October 6, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges that as an inmate at California State Prison - Sacramento (CSPSac), he was subjected to four lockdowns, resulting in extended periods of deprivation of outdoor

physical exercise in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, causing him physical and

psychological damage in the form of stress, depression, headaches and muscle cramps. Second

Amended Complaint (SAC), pp. 3-4. Inmates, including himself, were confined to double-bunk

cells 24-hours a day for seven days a week, with the exception of a five-minute shower period

every other day, excluding Sundays. SAC, p. 3.

From January 4, 2002, until November 4, 2003, black general population inmates

were deprived of outdoor exercise for fourteen out of twenty-two months, even when there was

no individual misconduct or showing of a propensity to escape. SAC, p. 4. The lockdowns

occurred as a result of prison staff having been stabbed, but impacted inmates who were

uninvolved in the incidents. SAC, pp. 4-5. 

The first period of deprivation of outdoor exercise commenced on January 4,

2002, and ended on April 3, 2002, due to an alleged staff stabbing allegedly perpetrated by 

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 17
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

3

 Mexican (Hispanic) inmates in dining hall two. SAC, p. 5. During that period a memorandum

rescinding outdoor exercise for inmates was circulated which was signed by defendant Steve

Vance, B-facility captain at CSP-Sac. Id. Then-warden, defendant Cheryl Pliler, not only must

have approved the excessive outdoor exercise deprivation, but also failed to intervene to prevent

the deprivation of outdoor exercise for a period of approximately thirteen weeks. Id. The lack

of exercise caused plaintiff to suffer anxiety, depression, stress, headaches and muscle cramps. 

Id. 

The second period of deprivation at CSP-Sac B-facility occurred from May 8,

2002, and extended until July 31, 2002, as a result of an alleged stabbing assault upon a

staffmember by a lone black inmate, who attacked his work supervisor. Memoranda were

circulated among inmates signed by defendant Vance and defendant Associate Warden T.

Goughnour, rescinding all outdoor exercise for the period set forth. Once again defendant Pliler

had to have approved the excessive deprivation of all outdoor exercise and failed to intervene to

prevent plaintiff’s resultant suffering therefrom, again for an approximate thirteen-week period. 

SAC, p. 5. 

The third period of outdoor exercise deprivation occurred as a result of a melee on

the B-facility main exercise yard, wherein member or members of the staff were allegedly

stabbed and extended from December 28, 2002, until June 1, 2003. Memoranda rescinding all

outdoor exercise for this period were circulated among inmates and signed by defendant Vance

and defendant B-facility Associate Warden M. Martell. This was for an approximate twentyweek period, and defendant Pliler once again must have approved it and failed to intervene to

prevent the suffering plaintiff experienced in the form of headaches, stress, anxiety, depression

and muscle cramps. SAC, p. 6. 

The fourth period of deprivation of outdoor exercise, extended from September 3,

2003, until November 4, 2003, during which period plaintiff suffered from the conditions

previously set forth. Memoranda, signed by defendant D. Willey, B-facility captain of CSP-Sac,

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 17
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

4

and B-facility Associate Warden James P. Walker, circulated rescinding all outdoor exercise for

the period, due to a staff stabbing assault in CSP-Sac B-facility’s housing block four. Defendant

CSP-Sac Warden Steve Knowles had to approve the continued lockdown and revocation of

outdoor exercise and failed to intervene to prevent plaintiff’s suffering. SAC, p. 6. 

Plaintiff’s grievances were denied on the bases of safety and security and lack of

accommodations. Id. Plaintiff avers that CSP-Sac has three facilities, A, B, and C, each

containing eight individual housing units. All are designed for Level 4, 180 inmates. All cells

are the same size, including doors, windows, showers and dayroom. Other than each facility’s

main exercise yard, each facility’s individual housing unit is adjacent to a mini concrete yard,

which has a manned gun tower affording a view of the entire yard. SAC, p. 7.

Administrative Segregation (Ad Seg) inmates have access to the mini concrete

yard ten days after being placed in Ad Seg, regardless of the reason for such placement. 

Inexplicably, however, programming general population (GP) inmates are deprived of access to

this yard for months at a time. SAC, p. 7. Plaintiff contends that GP inmates should have access

to the mini concrete yard once a facility has been searched throughout the investigation period. 

Plaintiff alleges that the deprivations occurred not as a result of the four staff stabbing assaults,

which he believes will be proven to be “isolated and/or spontaneous,” but as a form of retaliation

and punishment and not for safety, security reasons. Id.

Plaintiff contends that when administrators act on information it has received, as

on three occasions when information indicated “black affiliations” in a planned assault on staff,

the investigation takes from six to sixteen days, but when staff is involved (i.e., become victims)

of a stabbing assault, the investigation takes months. Prison staff have been able to search the

entire B-facility in a nine-to-eleven-day period when metal was missing on August 15, 2002 and

the search ended on August 26, 2002, but stabbings involving staff take months of searching. 

SAC, p. 8. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. 

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 17
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

5

Background

The original scheduling order in this matter was filed on May 17, 2005, wherein

the discovery deadline was set for August 26, 2005. However, subsequently, plaintiff filed a

motion to be allowed to proceed upon a second amended complaint, as noted earlier. In the

August 4, 2005, order, granting plaintiff leave to proceed on the second amended complaint, the

court also vacated the deadlines in the scheduling order, extending, inter alia, the discovery

deadline, and deadline for filing motions to compel discovery, until October 21, 2005. By order,

filed on August 30, 2005, the parties were granted until November 21, 2005, to conduct

discovery. By order, filed on October 25, 2005, plaintiff was granted 60 days from the date the

new defendant, C. Pliler, was served to file a motion to compel discovery, which applied as well

to defendant Pliler’s seeking discovery from plaintiff; as to the remaining defendants, the

November 21, 2005, discovery cut-off still applied. On December 1, 2005, due to an apparently

hastily arranged transfer of plaintiff, wherein he averred that he was separated from his legal

property, plaintiff was granted an extension of time until December 23, 2005, to file a motion to

compel as to all defendants but defendant Pliler, for whom the deadline with respect to her,

remained that set forth in the order, filed on October 25, 2005. According to plaintiff, prior to

the transfer from CSP-Sacramento to Calipatria State Prison, on November 7, 2005, he had been

informed that he would not be transferred until the pending litigation was resolved. The court

noted in its December 1, 2005, order, that plaintiff’s unopposed request to serve additional

discovery, filed on June 29, 2005, was granted, by order filed on August 4, 2005, and plaintiff

was allowed to propound upon defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), interrogatories

26 through 44 in set one and interrogatories 1 through 22 in set two, which are in excess of the

25-interrogatory limit set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. By order filed on January 5, 2006, plaintiff was

denied leave to serve further additional requests upon defendant Willey. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 5 of 17
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

6

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff avers that he has raised claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. To the extent plaintiff appears to be claiming that the extended deprivation of

exercise was retaliatory, he also seems to be making a First Amendment claim. Nevertheless, the

gravamen of plaintiff’s second amended complaint rests on his claims for violations of the Eighth

Amendment. By his motion he seeks further discovery as to all defendants with respect to his

first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents, except defendant Pliler; only

in his reply does he appear to improperly bootstrap a request for an order compelling discovery as

to defendant Pliler in his motion seeking further discovery as the earlier served defendants. Any

request as to defendant Pliler in his reply must be denied, as not made in accordance to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a), requiring reasonable notice to the party affected thereby.

As to his request for an order compelling further discovery as to defendants Mike

Knowles, S. J. Vance, J.P. Walker, T. Goughnour, M. Martel, D. Willey, plaintiff states that at

issue are his first set of interrogatories and of requests for production of documents propounded

as to each of them, and as to set two of the interrogatories and requests for production of

documents as to defendants Vance and Walker only. Motion to Compel (MTC), p. 1. Plaintiff

identifies the following of the responses to the first set of interrogatories propounded upon

defendants as at issue: Nos. 14 through 17, 25 through 28, 33 through 44. As to the second set of

interrogatories propounded upon defendant Vance, the answers to Nos. 9 through 12 and 20

through 22 are at issue. As to defendant Walker, the following from the second set of

interrogatories is at issue: No. 19. In addition, plaintiff states in the caption that his request to

compel (further) discovery as to each of these interrogatories is “combined with a request for

production of documents.” However, plaintiff does not set forth specifically what requests for

production of documents are at issue. To the extent that he attempts to conflate requests for

production of documents and other tangible items with interrogatories, his motion with respect to

further production will be denied.

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 6 of 17
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

7

Opposition

Defendants move for denial of the motion on the grounds that plaintiff has failed

to file his motion in compliance with Local Rule 33-250(c), the relevant part of which directs a

party seeking an order with regard to discovery to file the interrogatories and answers at issue

with the motion and only those at issue. As defendants point out, plaintiff did not attach the

interrogatories at issue with his motion to compel, which was filed on January 27, 2006, but,

instead, on February 3, 2006, separately filed 135 pages related to his discovery requests without

targeting the responses he challenges in that filing. Within that voluminous filing plaintiff

includes, willy-nilly, correspondence from defendants’ counsel to himself, supplemental

responses, and separately served verifications without focusing on the responses and the

interrogatories that are in dispute. Alternatively, defendants maintain they have responded

appropriately to the requests at issue, which specific arguments the court will consider where

appropriate in the discussion below.

Discussion

The scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be

obtained as to any unprivileged matter “relevant to the claim or defense of any party....” Id. 

Discovery may be sought of relevant information not admissible at trial “if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The court, however,

may limit discovery if it “....is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or can be obtained from

another source “that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”; or if the party who

seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity by discovery ...to obtain the information sought”; or

if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i)(ii) and (iii).

In his initial filing, plaintiff appears to have first set forth his efforts to resolve

discovery issues, appending to those filings his motion to compel. In that appended motion,

however, plaintiff did write out the specific interrogatories, and, to a limited extent, the responses

to which he objects. Although he did not include the exact responses, he indicated the objections

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 7 of 17
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

8

made. Even though plaintiff did not strictly comply with the applicable rule and plaintiff’s

haphazard method of putting together his motion in parts is onerous for both defendants and the

court, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has adequately identified the interrogatories at issue

herein. 

With respect, however, to any request for production of documents, plaintiff has

failed in his motion to specifically identify any such requests; therefore, pursuant to Local Rule

34-250(c), plaintiff has failed to comply with the applicable rule which requires that “only that

part of the request for production, response, or proof of service that is in issue shall be filed.” 

Thus, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion with respect to requests for production of documents,

to the extent he made any such motion and will proceed only to adjudicate the motion as to the

interrogatories he identified. 

First Set of Interrogatories:

No. 1: Throughout the January 4, 2002 lockdown at CSPSac B-facility until its conclusion of April 3, 2002, how many

black inmates were placed in administrative segregation and/or

referred to the district attorney for their involvement in the January

4, 2002 incident at CSP-Sac B facility? After providing the written

answer, would you forward the names and prison identification

number to the court for an in camera hearing? Also would you

provide the CDC 115 disciplinary report?

Response: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground

that it seeks information and documents that are irrelevant to the

claims and defenses in this lawsuit. Defendants further object to

the request on the ground that it is vague and uncertain as to time,

and that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendants

further object on the ground that it seeks information and

documents concerning other inmates that are confidential in nature. 

The Department of Corrections, as custodian of prison records, has

a duty to safeguard the privacy of inmates’ prison files. See Board

of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App.3d 516, 524-25. 

Inmates’ privacy rights are protected under the state and federal

constitutions. (Id.)

Plaintiff argues that he seeks the information about the initial lockdown to show

that prison officials went on a fishing expedition and that no black inmates were involved in any

incident. He also contends that the CDC 115 disciplinary report will show that the incident was

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 8 of 17
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

9

isolated or spontaneous and will give the name and badge number of the correctional officer, so

that plaintiff might be able to call him as a witness to describe how the incident transpired. 

MTC, pp. 13-14.

Defendants argue that plaintiff is alleging that he was deprived of outdoor

exercise during various Facility B lockdowns but his interrogatory is directed to the number of

black inmates placed in ad seg and/or referred to the district attorney for involvement in the

incident leading to the January 4, 2002, lockdown. In addition to reiterating their objections,

they also state that there was no basis for forwarding documents to the court for an in camera

hearing at the time plaintiff served his interrogatories. Opp., p. 5. 

In reply, plaintiff maintains that an essential part of his allegations, seeking

punitive damages, is that the deprivation of physical exercise was retaliatory, although he does

not set forth the requisite predicate for a claim of retaliation. Reply, p. 2. 

As the undersigned has noted before, this action proceeds primarily upon

plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. To the extent that

plaintiff may have attempted to frame any claim for retaliation in his second amended complaint,

he has not adequately set it forth. In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts

which suggest that retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or

“motivating” factor behind the defendant’s conduct. Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d

1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989); Rizzo 778 F.2d at 532. The plaintiff must also plead facts which

suggest an absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. 

Pratt at 806 (citing Rizzo at 532). Verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim. See

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats of bodily

injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing

the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions of

hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner must “allege specific facts showing retaliation

because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560,

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 9 of 17
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

10

562 (n.1) (10th Cir. 1990). 

In Pratt, the Ninth Circuit concluded that in evaluating retaliation claims, courts

should defer “to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for

conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)). 

In this case, plaintiff has not met the threshold requirement of setting forth any

constitutionally protected conduct that he exercised for which he allegedly suffered any

retaliation. This action remains one proceeding under the Eighth Amendment. The claim upon

which plaintiff proceeds is that he, as a general population inmate of Facility B, has been

subjected to repeated extended deprivations of his right to outdoor physical exercise that are

unconstitutional, i.e., he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The court sees no

basis for requiring a further response as to this interrogatory. Interrogatory no. 15 seeks the same

information with respect to the second lockdown period, from May 8, 2002, until July 31, 2002,

and will be denied for the same reasons. 

No. 16: Would you provide to both plaintiff and the court a video

tape of the December 28, 2002 melee that occurred at CSP-Sac B

facility’s main exercise yard in which staff were allegedly

assaulted? Could you also provide the names of the inmates who

were either transferred, placed in administrative segregation or

referred to the District Attorney for prosecution in relation to the

December 28, 2002 staff assault at CSP-Sac B facility? Also

would you provide the CDC 115 disciplinary reports?

Response: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground

that it seeks information and documents that are irrelevant to the

claims and defenses in this lawsuit. Defendants further object on

the ground that it seeks information and documents concerning

other inmates that are confidential in nature. The Department of

Corrections, as custodian of prison records, has a duty to safeguard

the privacy of inmates’ prison files. See Board of Trustees v.

Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App.3d 516, 524-25. Inmates’

privacy rights are protected under the state and federal

constitutions. (Id.)

Plaintiff avers that the videotape “is the most compelling piece of evidence which

demonstrates isolation and/or spontaneity.” MTC, p. 15. He also contends that inmate

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 10 of 17
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

11

statements will show “isolation and/or spontaneity.” Id. Defendants re-assert their argument

that the videotape of the December 28, 2002, melee is not relevant to plaintiff’s claim of denial

of outdoor exercise, nor is it reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence

related to the claim or to the defenses in this action. Opp., p. 6. In his reply, plaintiff argues that

the court can protect inmates’ privacy, that inmates being prosecuted for their roles in assaults do

not have privacy rights, that plaintiff is alleging that the deprivation period was a means of

retaliation. 

Once again, however, the court must agree with defendants that retaliation is not

the basis of plaintiff’s allegations as set forth in the second amended complaint, but the

deprivation of outdoor exercise constitutes the basis of his complaint. Defendants are correct

that a videotape of the actual incident that precipitated the December 28, 2002, lockdown is not

reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence related to plaintiff’s claim. The

motion as to this request will be denied. In Interrogatory No. 17, plaintiff seeks the same

information with respect to any involvement in the incident giving rise to the fourth lockdown

period by any black inmate and the motion as to this request will be denied for the same reasons

articulated for the denial of plaintiff’s motion as to responses to Interrogatories no. 14 and no 15.

In Interrogatory No. 25, plaintiff asks if defendant Vance contends that 

information provided by informants prolonged the period of deprivation of outdoor exercise from

January 4, 2002-April 3, 2002, and if so, seeks the names and identification numbers of any such

informants to the court, along with any procedure used to determine the reliability of the

information. Defendants object on the grounds of irrelevance and on the basis of confidentiality

and privilege. 

In his motion, plaintiff states that he does not need the names of any informant but

seeks any information provided by an informant and the basis for determining the reliability of

the information. MTC, p. 16. He objects also to defendants’ failure to even respond by

indicating that an informant did or did not provide information. In their response to this request,

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 11 of 17
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

 Apparently there is some confusion in the numbering because plaintiff apparently

3

numbered two different interrogatories as no. 11, after which defendants noted the actual number

and plaintiff’s numbering side by side. 

12

defendants indicate that upon further review that plaintiff by this request was seeking potentially

relevant information and thus supplemented their response. However, by their supplemental

response, defendants do not supplement the response to the interrogatory that plaintiff has

identified as no. 25 in his motion, but rather supplement the interrogatory plaintiff has numbered

as 26 in his motion. Therefore, although defendants have represented that the interrogatory 3

concerning the January 4, 2002 - April 3, 2002 lockdown period has been supplemented but have

apparently failed to do so, they will be directed to do so in the manner that they have

supplemented Nos. 26 through 28.

No. 26: Do defendants S.J. Vance and T. Goughnour contend that

it was information from informants that prolonged the outdoors

exercise period [sic] throughout the May 8, 2002 - July 13, 2002

lockdown? If so, would you provide their names and identification

number to the court along with the necessary screening procedure

that was employed in order to deem the informants reliable, along

with the information the informant provided?

Initially, defendants objected to this interrogatory because plaintiff had exceeded

the permissible number of interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). However, as noted earlier,

the court granted plaintiff leave to serve additional interrogatories in an unopposed request. 

Supplemental Response (by defendants Vance & Goughnour):

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

vague and ambiguous [sic] what plaintiff defines as “prolonged,”

and seeks confidential information about other inmates which if

disclosed may place those inmates at risk of harm and threaten the

safety and security of the institution. Therefore, to the extent

plaintiff seeks the names or identities of any confidential

informants, that information will not be provided.

Notwithstanding these objections, on May 8, 2002, an inmate in B

facility brutally attacked an officer with a weapon. As a result of

the attack, the facility was placed on lock-down status pending an

investigation into the attack. A thorough investigation must be

completed before un-locking the facility. The investigation

includes, staff, witness, and inmate interviews, a search of the

grounds for additional weapons, and completion of relevant

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 12 of 17
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

13

reports. While confidential information may have been provided

or uncovered during the course of the investigation, the duration of

the lock-down is based on how long it took to complete the

investigation and reach the determination that it is safe to un-lock. 

Furthermore, the two month lockdown can hardly be referred to as

a “prolonged” [sic] given the nature and severity of the incident. 

While every lock-down is different and the durations may vary,

prior to unlocking a facility, the investigation must be complete

and staff must be satisfied that it is safe to unlock the facility.

Plaintiff posits his dissatisfaction with this response to Interrogatory No. 26 in his

reply as well as to the response to No. 25 and supplemental responses to Nos. 27 and 28.

No. 27: Do defendants S.J. Vance and M. Martel contend that it

was information provided by informants that the deprivation period

of outdoor exercise from December 28, 2002 - June 1, 2003? If so,

would you provide the names and prison identification number to

the court along with the necessary screening procedure that was

employed in order to deem the informants reliable, along with the

information the informants provided?

Supplemental Response (by defendants Vance & Martel):

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

vague and ambiguous [sic] what plaintiff defines as “prolonged,”

and seeks confidential information about other inmates which if

disclosed may place those inmates at risk of harm and threaten the

safety and security of the institution. Therefore, to the extent

plaintiff seeks the names or identities of any confidential

informants, that information will not be provided.

Notwithstanding these objections, on December 28, 2002,

Correctional Sergeant Murphy was brutally attacked by a large

number of black inmates while on the B facility main exercise

yard. While responding to the vicinity where Sergeant Murphy

was being assaulted, Sergeant Graham was also rushed by three

inmates who then proceeded to brutally assault him as well. 

Responding staff was also attacked by various other inmates while

attempting to calm down the incident and stop the attacks on the

[sic] Sergeant Murphy and Sergeant Graham. A total of six

inmate-manufactured weapons were recovered during the incident. 

As a result of the attacks, the facility was placed on lock-down

status pending an investigation into the attack. A thorough

investigation includes staff, witness, and inmate interviews, a

search of the grounds for additional weapons, and completion of

the relevant reports. While confidential information may have

been provided, the duration of the lock-down was based on the

amount of time it took to complete the investigation.

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 13 of 17
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

14

While every lock-down is different and the durations may vary,

prior to unlocking the facility, the investigation must be complete

and staff must be satisfied that it is safe to unlock the facility. 

No. 28: Do defendants D. Willey and J.P. Walker contend that it

was information provided by informants that prolonged the

outdoors exercise period [sic] throughout the September 3, 2003 -

November 4, 2003 lockdown? If so, would you provide names and

identification number to the court along with the necessary

screening procedure that was employed in order to deem the

informants reliable, along with the information the informants

provided?

Supplemental Response (by defendant Walker): Defendant objects

to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous

[sic] what plaintiff defines as “prolonged,” and seeks confidential

information about other inmates which if disclosed may place

those inmates at risk of harm and threaten the safety and security of

the institution. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff seeks the names or

identities of any confidential informants, that information will not

be provided.

Notwithstanding these objections, on September 3, 2003, an inmate

in B Facility brutally attacked and slashed an officer with a

weapon. As a result of the attack, the facility was placed on lockdown status pending an investigation into the attack. A thorough

investigation must be completed before unlocking the facility. The

investigation includes staff, witness, and inmate interviews, a

search of the grounds for additional weapons, and completion of

relevant reports. While confidential information may be provided

by inmates, the duration of the lock-down is based on the duration

of the investigation.

 The two month lockdown can hardly be referred to as a

“prolonged” [sic] given the nature and severity of the incident. 

While every lock-down is different and the durations may vary,

prior to unlocking a facility, the investigation must be complete

and staff must be satisfied that it is safe to unlock the facility.

Plaintiff repeatedly attempts to shore up a claim of retaliation, upon which this

action does not proceed. A passing reference in his second amended complaint alleging that

certain conduct is punitive or retaliatory actions wherein the focus of the allegations is that

plaintiff has been unconstitutionally deprived of outdoor physical exercise does not constitute a

claim of retaliation, as previously explained. The court will not order further responses to these

interrogatories.

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 14 of 17
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

15

As to Interrogatory Nos. 33-44, each seeks information as to each defendant with

respect to whether or not any of them have been accused of misconduct by staff or inmates,

whether any reprimands have been received or whether any defendant has ever been placed on

probation. None of plaintiff’s inquiries are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence as to his Eighth Amendment claim and will be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the second set

of Interrogatories directed to defendant Vance seek information to show that cell searches

conducted for staff assaults take longer than those conducted for any other reason. MTC, pp. 19-

20. Defendant Vance indicates his intent to supplement his responses to the extent that specific

information becomes available as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with regard to when the first

cell search and last cell search occurred in Facility B, during the lockdown periods following the 

the incidents on January 4, 2002, May 8, 2002, and December 28, 2002. Opp., pp. 8-9. In any

event, it appears that plaintiff seeks information regarding the number or length of time of cell

searches in an apparent effort to show that such searches are based on a retaliatory motive. The

motion as to these requests will be denied. Equally irrelevant to the claim upon which this action

proceeds is plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 12, seeking information as to the length of time taken to

conduct a search in B Facility for missing metal on August 12, 2004, or for weaponry on January

3, 2005, and on October 12, 2004.

As to Interrogatories 20-22, defendant Vance, after interposing objections,

provided a substantive response to plaintiff’s questions as to whether the alleged perpetrators

were being prosecuted in state court for the January 4, 2002, May 8, 2002, and December 28,

2002, staff stabbing assaults. Plaintiff’s motion as to these requests will be denied.

In Interrogatory No. 19, in the second set of interrogatories directed to defendant

Walker, plaintiff asks the defendant what a mini-concrete yard is used for. He also asks

defendant to produce photographs of the B Facility mini-concrete yards at CSP-Sac. In response,

defendant Walker, after interposing objections states: “mini yards have been used when

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 15 of 17
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

16

necessary to provide certain inmates with an area to exercise when the inmate’s presence on the

mainline could pose a threat to the safety or security of the inmate, other inmates, or staff. The

mini concrete yards are too small to accommodate a yard program with large numbers of

inmates.” Defendant has responded to plaintiff’s question. It is inappropriate to ask defendant to

produce photographs as part of an interrogatory, or to combine a request for production of

documents with an interrogatory. Moreover, defendant, inter alia, objects to plaintiff’s request

that defendant take photos for plaintiff, a responsibility plaintiff cannot properly place on him. 

The motion as to this request will be denied.

Motion to Continue Consideration of Summary Judgment Motion

In his motion/declaration filed, evidently made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),

plaintiff asks the court to “postpone” or continue consideration of defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, filed on March 23, 2006, so that he may have time to file an opposition,

based on his not yet having received all of the discovery responses/production he has sought by

his motion to compel. Notwithstanding the request for postponement of consideration of

defendants’ dispositive motion, plaintiff having been previously granted an extension of time to

file his opposition to the summary judgment motion, proceeded to file an opposition, on May 12,

2006, of more than 680 pages, absurdly excessive and burdensome upon the court even in light

of the fact that he includes in it such superfluous material as a copy of the dispositive motion

itself. Nevertheless, because the court has directed defendant Vance to provide the supplemented

response to Interrogatory No. 25, of the first set of interrogatories, the court will allow plaintiff to

file a supplemental opposition, should he choose to do, as set forth below. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2006, motion to compel further responses and

production of documents is denied as not made in compliance with Local Rule 34-250(c).

2. Plaintiff’s request for discovery responses made with respect to defendant

Pliler, raised only in the reply, is denied as made without adequate notice to defendants, thus

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 16 of 17
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

17

failing to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). 

3. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2006, motion to compel further discovery with respect

to defendant Vance’s answer to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 25 in the first set of interrogatories,

the question concerning the January 4, 2002-April 3, 2002, lockdown period, which defendant

Vance indicates has been supplemented but does not appear to have been, is granted to the extent

that defendants have provided supplemented responses to interrogatories regarding the other

lockdown periods, and the supplemented response must be served upon plaintiff within 15 days,

along with a filing in this court indicating the supplemented response has been served. 

4. As to plaintiff’s January 27, 2006, motion to compel further discovery with

respect the remaining interrogatories propounded upon defendants Mike Knowles, S. J. Vance,

J.P. Walker, T. Goughnour, M. Martel, D. Willey, the motion is denied.

5. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2006, motion to compel further discovery with respect

to defendants’ answers to his second set of interrogatories propounded upon defendants Vance

and Walker is denied.

6. Plaintiff’s motion, filed on April 17, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),

for consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on March 23, 2006, to be

continued is granted only to the extent that plaintiff will be allowed, should he choose to do so, 

to file a supplemental opposition to the dispositive motion within 30 days of service upon him of

defendant Vance’s supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 25 of the first set of

interrogatories. 

DATED: 9/20/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

norw2554.mtc

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 100 Filed 09/21/06 Page 17 of 17