Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-63/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Procedural Background1

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the 

complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez and Masiel for use 

of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for 

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, 

Miranda and Garcia for assault and battery in violation of state law.

 

1 This case has an extensive procedural history involving multiple motions to compel and motions for sanctions. As the 

parties are familiar with this history, discussion is limited to the procedural matters relevant to the instant motion. 

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT MARTINEZ’S 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 

(ECF No. 192)

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 6
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

On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Martinez to provide further 

responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (ECF No. 176.) On September 13, 2013, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Defendant Martinez to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 187.) On October 7, 2013, the Court 

granted Defendant Martinez’s request for an extension of time to October 11, 2013, to serve his 

supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8. (ECF No. 190.) Defendant 

Martinez served Plaintiff with supplemental responses on October 8, 2013. (ECF No. 192, Pl’s Ex. 1.)

On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the imposition of discovery 

sanctions based on assertions that Defendant Martinez failed to comply with the Court’s order to 

supplement his interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 192.) Defendant Martinez did not file a response. 

On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a supplemental motion to 

his request for sanctions. Plaintiff’s request included his supplemental motion. (ECF No. 203.) The 

Court granted the request and directed Defendants to file a response to the motion within fourteen (14) 

days. (ECF No. 204.) Defendants filed a response on December 20, 2013, and Plaintiff replied on 

January 2, 2014. (ECF Nos. 205, 206.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Motion for Sanctions for Defendant Martinez’s Failure to Comply with Court 

Order

A. Standard

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey an 

order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue further just orders, which may include the 

imposition of sanctions upon the disobedient party, including dismissal of the action or proceeding in 

whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “[T]he court must order the disobedient party, the 

attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused 

by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions appears limited to Defendant Martinez’s supplemental response 

to Interrogatory No. 7. (ECF No. 192, p. 2.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 6
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

Interrogatory No. 7 states:

“On January 22, 2007, during the incident you describe in incident reports, (COR-04A07-01-0040), you wrote ‘emergency cell entry procedures were initiated.’ Please 

describe and identify the ‘emergency cell entry procedures.’”

Pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendant Martinez was required supplement his response to 

Interrogatory No. 7 as follows:

Defendant Martinez shall respond to the interrogatory with a description of the cell 

operation procedure that was to be completed at the time of the alleged incident. 

Defendant Martinez also shall identify whether the procedures in effect at the time were 

the same or substantially the same as those found in DOM Chapter [5] (Exhibit A to his 

opposition) or to otherwise cite or, at his option, provide a copy of the textual source of 

the relevant procedure.

ECF No. 187, p. 5.)

Defendant Martinez provided the following supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 7:

Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is duplicative of 

information that has previously been provided to Plaintiff. Without waiving said 

objection, the procedures for an emergency cell entry are dependent upon the situation. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with orders, and his feigning unconsciousness, 

required that a tactical cell extraction team be assembled to remove Plaintiff from his 

cell. Before entering the cell, I tried verbal intervention, but Plaintiff refused to 

acknowledge my orders. I summoned medical staff, and then utilized pepper spray. 

Once pepper spray was utilized, Plaintiff stood up, went to the sink to rinse off his face, 

then complied with orders to submit to mechanical restraints. Because the use of pepper 

had the desired effect, no cell entry was required. There are no written procedures that 

specifically cover emergency cell entry procedures for this incident, however, the 

procedures for the immediate use of force are set forth in the Department Operations 

Manual, section 51020, et seq.

(ECF No. 205, Defs’ Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff’s Contentions

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Martinez did not describe any cell operation procedures, and 

could not respond to the second part of the court order. Plaintiff believes that CDCR had procedures 

in 2007 regarding cell extraction for both immediate and calculated uses of force during cell 

extractions and contends that Defendant Martinez is not being truthful. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Martinez’s citation to DOM section 51020.1 suggests that there 

is more information available. Plaintiff relies on the portion of 51020.1 that states: “This policy, in 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

conjunction with related procedures and training, defines staff responsibilities and limitations 

concerning the use of force.” (ECF No. 192, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff also references admittedly outdated documents to support his contention that 

procedures relevant to this matter are in existence. Plaintiff points to the following documents: (1) a 

1994 Restricted Administrative Bulletin reportedly announcing the use of Oleoresin Capsicum, 

authorizing its use in various situations, and referring to restricted DOM sections; (2) an April 1999 

Administrative Bulletin regarding use of force, which reportedly includes discussion of procedures 

related to calculated use of force situations; (3) a Use of Force Follow-Up Training Instructor’s Guide

dated July 2, 1999, which provides a description of emergency use of force and calculated use of 

force; (4) Pelican Bay State Prison’s Operational Procedures received in 2000; and (5) the CSP 

Corcoran Operational Procedure related to the use of force for October 2007. (ECF No. 192, pp. 4-5, 

Pl’s Exs. 2-6; ECF No. 203.) Plaintiff believes these documents evidence that CDCR’s policy is clear 

and well established prior to the 2007 incident and that Defendant Martinez should have the 

procedures in effect during the incident in 2007. Plaintiff asserts that if Defendant Martinez was 

unaware of any documents comprising the relevant procedures, then CDCR may have failed to 

properly train him. Alternatively, Plaintiff asserts that the CSP Corcoran Operational Procedure dated 

October 2007 is proof that Defendant Martinez is not being truthful. Plaintiff believes that Defendant 

Martinez’s failure to provide a response as instructed by the Court is prejudicial to his case. 

Defendants’ Contentions

Defendants report that they have provided all documents regarding the use of force that are 

maintained by the prison—either directly to Plaintiff or to the Court for in camera review. Defendants 

further contend that Defendant Martinez’s supplemental response describes the situation he faced and 

the procedures utilized by him at the time. The supplemental response also identified the relevant 

DOM sections, which cover the CDCR’s Use of Force policies. Defendants indicate that Plaintiff has 

access to the DOM and a copy of the document was provided to him. 

Defendants agree that Plaintiff is correct in his belief that section 51020.1 suggests there is 

more information regarding the relevant procedures. However, Defendants explain that the remaining 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 6
5

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

procedures are all set forth in subsequent sections of the DOM chapter and that Plaintiff has been 

provided with the relevant training documents referenced by section 51020.1. 

Defendants reiterate that “there are no additional documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request 

for production of documents.” (ECF No. 205, p. 4.) Defendants also argue that there is no additional 

information necessary to supplement Defendant Martinez’s interrogatory response. 

Ruling: 

Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence, along with Defendant Martinez’s 

response, the Court does not find any basis to issue sanctions. Defendant Martinez detailed the 

procedure utilized to extract Plaintiff from his cell and cited the relevant DOM provisions in 

compliance with the Court’s order. Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant’s explanation is 

incomplete.

Plaintiff’s reliance on outdated documents from 1994 and 1999 do not provide any evidence of 

procedures in effect at the time of the incident. They also do not provide evidence that Defendant 

Martinez (or counsel) is being untruthful. Although Plaintiff cites an operational procedure dated 

October 2007, he has not provided any evidence or argument suggesting that this procedure differs in 

material respects from the DOM policies and procedures cited by Defendant Martinez. Given 

Defendant Martinez’s continued citation to the relevant portions of the DOM, Plaintiff may infer that 

these policies and procedures were substantially the same as those in effect at the time of the incident. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, use of force policies and procedures will not “prove 

defendants’ culpability,” nor will they be critical to supporting his case at trial. (ECF No. 192, pp. 5 

and 6.) Use of force policies and procedures do not provide any evidence regarding the claim at issue 

here; that is, whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 

(1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In determining whether the use of 

force was wanton and unnecessary, it is proper to consider factors such as the need for application of 

force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived 

by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response. 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. These factors do not include consideration of any use of force policy or 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

procedure. Moreover, if this matter proceeds to trial, the jury will be required to determine whether 

Defendant Martinez used excessive and unnecessary force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose 

of causing harm, and will not be asked to determine whether he complied with any CDCR policy or 

procedure. 

Plaintiff has admitted to filing several motions over the past few years regarding the production 

of the use of force procedures. The Court will no longer countenance such motions. Defendants have 

represented that there are no additional documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents related to use of force policies and procedures.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed October 18, 2013, is HEREBY 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 211 Filed 08/11/14 Page 6 of 6