Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

THEON OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 7, 2019, the undersigned issued an order addressing several 

discovery motions filed by plaintiff. (ECF No. 134.) In the October 7, 2019 order, the 

undersigned ordered defendants to file a further response to request for admissions nos. 2 and 5.

(Id. at 16.) The undersigned also granted defendants thirty days to provide plaintiff with 

responses to the interrogatories served on June 14, 2018. (Id.) 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 motion to compel. (ECF No. 

146.) In this motion, plaintiff moves to compel further responses to request for admissions nos. 2 

and 5, discussed in the October 7, 2019 order. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to 

defendants’ responses to his June 14, 2018 interrogatories. 

Defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 motion to compel. 

/////

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 158 Filed 03/05/20 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

For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 motion to compel as to 

requests for admissions nos. 2 and 5 is denied. Defendants are ordered to respond to the 

December 23, 2019 motion to compel addressing their responses to plaintiff’s June 14, 2018 

interrogatories. In the response to the motion to compel, defendants shall also address whether 

the motion to compel is timely and whether they have provided plaintiff with signed copies of 

responses.1

Request for admissions no. 2 asked defendants to admit that defendant Bettencourt used a 

wet swab on non-defendant Potter’s shirt sleeve. (ECF No. 134 at 3.) Defendants objected to this 

request as vague and ambiguous as to time, date and the term “wet swab.” (Id.) Without waiving 

objection, defendants responded that they lacked sufficient information to admit or deny this 

request and, on that basis, denied the request. (Id. at 3-4.)

In the October 7, 2019 order, the undersigned observed that in the complaint, plaintiff 

alleged that on February 18, 2015, defendant Bettencourt used a wet swab on non-defendant 

Potter’s shirt sleeve. (Id. at 4.) The undersigned found that the term “web swab” was not unduly 

vague. (Id.) Defendants were ordered to file an amended response to request no. 2 based on the 

allegations in plaintiff’s complaint on page 17. (Id.)

In the amended response, without waiving objection, defendants responded that they 

lacked sufficient information to admit or deny request no. 2, and, on that basis, deny it. (ECF No. 

146 at 132.) The undersigned finds that defendants adequately responded to request no. 2. No 

further response is required. 

Request no. 5 asked defendants to admit that the injuries suffered by plaintiff were serious 

and constituted S.B.I. (ECF No. 134 at 5.) The undersigned ordered defendant Okoroike to file 

an amended response to request no. 5. (Id. at 6.) The undersigned ordered defendant Okoroike to 

admit or deny that the injuries suffered by plaintiff as a result of the February 18, 2015 incident 

constituted serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 3000 of Title 15. (Id.) 

1

 In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that the responses to the interrogatories were not 

signed by defendants. Instead, defense counsel informed plaintiff that signed copies would 

follow under separate cover. (See ECF No. 146 at 38.) 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 158 Filed 03/05/20 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

Without waiving objection, in the amended response, defendant Okoroike stated that 

assuming plaintiff is referring to the injuries he suffered as a result of his self-injurious behavior 

that occurred on February 18, 2015, and based on the definition of Serious Bodily Injury as set 

forth in the California Code of Regulation, title 15, § 3000, which states: “a serious impairment 

of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of consciousness; 

concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or 

organ; a wound requiring suturing; and disfigurement,” the request is admitted as plaintiff 

received four sutures. (ECF No. 146 at 130.)

The undersigned finds that defendant Okoroike adequately responded to request no. 5. No 

further response is required.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 motion to compel (ECF No. 146) is denied as to 

request for admissions nos. 2 and 5;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a response to the 

December 23, 2019 motion to compel addressing their responses to interrogatories 

served on June 14, 2018; plaintiff may file a reply within twenty-one days thereafter.

Dated: March 4, 2020

Owen2750.com(3)

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 158 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 3