Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00817/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00817-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS CARTER ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0817 MCE KJM P

vs.

W. HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are before the court. A hearing was held

with respect to plaintiff’s February 3, 2006 motion to compel and plaintiff’s March 1, 2006

motion to compel on September 26, 2006. At the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Catherine

Woodbridge appeared for defendants Hernandez, Morrison and Pai; plaintiff appeared

telephonically. 

I. Background

On September 30, 2005, the court screened plaintiff’s September 17, 2004

amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court found that service of process was

appropriate for defendants Hernandez, Morrison and Pai. The court also found that plaintiff’s

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 10
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

2

complaint states causes of action under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Hernandez,

Morrison and Pai and under the First Amendment against defendant Pai.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges defendants Hernandez and Morrison,

both California Department of Corrections (CDC) correctional officers, were deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s safety because they ignored a water leak in plaintiff’s cell. Am. Compl.

at 6-8. As a result of the leak, water accumulated in plaintiff’s cell causing plaintiff to slip and

fall in late 2001, and then again early in 2002. Id. at 8. 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Pai, a CDC physician, was deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s medical needs by abruptly terminating plaintiff’s narcotic medication causing plaintiff

to suffer severe symptoms of withdrawal. Id. at 9, 17-18. Plaintiff claims Dr. Pai did this in

retaliation for plaintiff’s filing a lawsuit against another prison staff member and complaining

about prison conditions. Id. at 17-18. 

Defendants Morrison and Pai filed their answer on December 9, 2005. Defendant

Hernandez filed his answer on January 31, 2006. 

II. Plaintiff’s Request For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint

On January 9 and January 17, 2006, plaintiff filed motions for leave to file a

second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s motions will be denied as plaintiff has made no attempt

to justify the nearly sixteen month delay in seeking leave to amend after plaintiff filed his first

amended complaint on September 17, 2004. See Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d

531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (in determining whether to grant leave to amend, factors to be

considered include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

through prior amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility). Although there is

no indication of plaintiff’s bad faith or dilatory motive, defendants would be prejudiced by the

further delay in litigation that would be occasioned by allowing amendment at this time. Id. At

the same time, the proposed amendments do not alter the nature of the claims, with one

exception, namely the addition of a defendant, Officer Hartley. With regard to this defendant,

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 10
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

any amendment would be futile as plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint fails to state a

claim against Hartley upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

III. Plaintiff’s February 3, 2006 Motion To Compel

Plaintiff asks that the court compel defendants to provide further answers to

several requests for discovery. Plaintiff argues that in several respects defendants’ answers are

evasive and incomplete. 

A. Interrogatories

First, plaintiff asks that defendant Morrison be ordered to provide further answers

to interrogatories 2 and 3. The court has reviewed Morrison’s responses and finds that they are

responsive to the questions propounded. Mot., Ex. A at 2. Morrison will not be ordered to

provide further substantive responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. 

Next, plaintiff requests that defendant Pai be ordered to provide a further answer

to interrogatory 3. However, the court finds that Pai’s answer to interrogatory 3 is not evasive or

incomplete, given that the question propounded is a general question and not tailored to

plaintiff’s medical case. Mot., Ex. B at 2. Pai will not be ordered to provide further substantive

responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. 

The court, however, notes that at least some of defendants’ answers to plaintiff’s

interrogatories were not verified by defendants themselves as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 33(b). Defendants will be ordered to provide verifications to all answers to

interrogatories within twenty days.

B. Document Requests

Plaintiff requests that defendant Morrison be ordered to provide further responses

to requests to produce numbers 1 through 5 and 7 through 12, and that defendant Pai be ordered

to provide further responses to requests to produce numbers 1 through 3, 5 and 7 through 13, in

plaintiff’s first set of document requests. 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 10
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 assert that plaintiff’s failure to “meet and confer” is a basis to deny all of 1

the motions to compel addressed in this order. The court rejects defendants’ argument with

respect to every motion to compel addressed herein. 

4

Defendants Pai and Morrison assert they should not be ordered to provide further

responses to plaintiff’s requests to produce because plaintiff did not make an attempt to “meet

and confer” with defendants Pai or Morrison, or their counsel, prior to filing his motion to

compel. Opp’n at 3:17-26. However, in this court’s December 29, 2005 discovery order, the

parties were informed that Local Rule 37-251, which requires, among other things, that parties

meet and confer before a motion to compel is filed, will not apply in this case. Because plaintiff

is incarcerated, requiring that the parties meet and confer before the filing of a motion to compel

is simply not practical. 

1

Pai and Morrison also assert that they have no access to any of the documents

requested by plaintiff other than the documents they have already produced. Opp’n at 4:18-19. 

Defendants claim the documents are in the “custody, control and possession” of the CDC and if

plaintiff wants access to the documents he must subpoena them from CDC. Opp’n at 4:19-20. 

At the September 26, 2006 hearing, counsel for defendants asserted that Morrison does not have

access to any of the documents requested because Morrison no longer works at the California

Medical Facility (CMF), which is the facility where the events alleged in plaintiff’s amended

complaint occurred. However, on September 27, 2006, counsel for defendants filed a declaration

indicating Morrison does still work at CMF. Therefore, the court deems defendants’ argument,

that Morrison does not have access to the documents requested, withdrawn. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request that defendant Morrison be directed to provide

further responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, the court will grant the

requests as to the following:

1. Any documents directing what actions should be taken by a correctional officer

at CMF if a water leak occurs in a cell. (Request Nos. 1,7, 8 & 11.)

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 10
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

2. Any documents indicating plaintiff complained to correctional officers about

there being a water leak in plaintiff’s cell between September 2001 and March 2002. (Request

No. 10.) 

3. Any documents, except for documents found in plaintiff’s CDC medical file,

concerning injuries sustained by plaintiff when he slipped and fell in his cell on December 31,

2001 and January 23, 2002. (Request Nos. 4 & 9.)

4. Any documents that show there were plumbing problems in the P1 Housing

Unit at CMF between September 2001 and March 2002. (Request No. 10.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production from

defendant Morrison will be denied in all other respects because to the extent they request more

information they are overbroad, vague, or not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence concerning plaintiff’s claims against defendant Morrison. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

With respect to plaintiff’s request that defendant Pai be directed to provide further

responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, the court will order defendant Pai

to produce documents responsive to request to produce numbers 2 and 12, if any exist. With

respect to request 2, Pai need only produce documents that show guidelines for tapering inmates

off pain medications similar to those taken by plaintiff before defendant Pai discontinued

plaintiff’s prescription for those drugs. If, to the best of defendant Pai’s knowledge, such

documents do not exist at all, defendant Pai shall provide plaintiff with a declaration in which Pai

verifies as much. If defendant Pai does not have access to such documents, Pai shall provide

plaintiff with a declaration verifying such lack of access. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further

responses to his requests for production by defendant Pai will be denied in all other respects as

overbroad, vague, or not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Pai.

Finally, defendants assert that they have subpoenaed some of the records sought

by plaintiff from CDC, including records from plaintiff’s CDC medical file. Opp’n at 4:20-23. 

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 5 of 10
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

 Given that it is plaintiff requesting his own health records, the court need not reach the 2

question of whether defendants’ counsel’s position with regard to limitations or restrictions on

discovery imposed by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), articulated

at the September 26 hearing and confirmed in the September 27 filing, is well taken. The court

notes, however, that HIPAA and its implementing regulations appear to provide for the

disclosure of health information in litigation subject to certain straightforward preconditions. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.; 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). 

6

At the September 26 hearing, counsel for defendants indicated she is willing to provide plaintiff

with a copy of those documents. Good cause appearing, the court will order defendants Morrison 

and Pai to turn over any documents subpoenaed by their counsel in this action that are responsive

to plaintiff’s discovery requests.

2

IV. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2006 Motion To Compel

Plaintiff asks that defendants Morrison and Pai be ordered to respond further to

requests to produce numbers 1 through 4 found in plaintiff’s second request for production of

documents. Defendants Morrison and Pai assert a number of objections. The court finds that the

requests found in plaintiff’s second request for production are either too vague, overbroad or are

not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2006

motion to compel will be denied in its entirety.

V. Plaintiff’s March 1, 2006 Motion To Compel

In his third motion to compel, plaintiff seeks a further response to four other

requests to produce. In light of the fact that the court is ordering defendants to produce

documents in response to plaintiff’s February 3, 2006 motion to compel, the court will not order

a further response as a result of the March 1, 2006 motion, as much of the information sought is

the same. To the extent it is not, plaintiff’s requests to produce are overbroad, vague, or not

likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

VI. Plaintiff’s March 1, 2006 Motion For An Extension Of Time To Conduct Discovery

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to conduct more discovery. However,

plaintiff has failed to offer any reason why he needs to request more information from defendants

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 6 of 10
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

once his motions to compel are resolved. Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

VII. Defendants’ June 8, 2006 Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. In light of the fact that

the court is ordering defendants to provide further discovery responses, defendants’ motion will

be denied without prejudice to renewal no earlier than sixty days, and no later than ninety days,

from the date of this order. Defendants may renew their motion simply by informing the court of

such renewal in a written notice. The court also will vacate the dates established in the court’s

December 29, 2005 scheduling order for the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and

trial. Those dates will be reset, if necessary after any motions for summary judgment are

resolved.

VIII. Plaintiff’s July 6, 2006 Motion To Compel

On June 21, 2006, defendants Morrison and Pai sent plaintiff supplemental

responses to plaintiff’s first request for production of documents numbers 4 and 6. Plaintiff’s

motion objects to the supplemental responses as incomplete and evasive. On December 29,

2005, plaintiff was informed that all motions to compel discovery had to be filed by April 14,

2006. In any case, plaintiff’s objections to defendant Morrison and Pai’s supplemental responses

are not directed solely to the supplemental responses, but stem from the nature of defendants’

initial responses. To the extent plaintiff raised his objections in earlier motions to compel they

are addressed above. To the extent he did not, plaintiff’s motion is not timely and the court finds

there is not good cause to allow consideration of the motion beyond the discovery cutoff. 

IX. Plaintiff’s August 16, 2006 Request For The Appointment Of Counsel

Finally, plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 7 of 10
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

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel therefore will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 9 and January 17, 2006 motions for leave to file a second

amended complaint are denied.

2. Defendants shall provide verifications to all of their answers to plaintiff’s

interrogatories as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) within twenty days of this

order. 

3. Plaintiff’s February 3, 2006 motion to compel is granted in part and denied in

part as follows:

A. Within twenty days of this order:

i. Counsel for defendant Pai and Morrison shall provide plaintiff

with documents obtained through subpoena in this action that are

responsive to any of plaintiff’s requests to produce.

 ii. Defendant Morrison shall produce:

a. Any documents directing what actions should be taken

by a correctional officer at the California Medical Facility if

a water leak occurs in a cell.

b. Any documents indicating plaintiff complained to

correctional officers about there being a water leak in

plaintiff’s cell between September 2001 and March 2002.

c. Any documents concerning injuries sustained by

plaintiff, except for documents found in plaintiff’s

California Department of Corrections medical file, when 

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 8 of 10
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

plaintiff slipped and fell in his cell on December 31, 2001

and January 23, 2002.

d. Any documents that show there were plumbing

problems in the P1 Housing Unit at the California Medical

Facility at any time between September 2001 and March

2002.

iii. Defendant Pai shall produce: 

a. Documents responsive to request to produce number 12

found in plaintiff’s first request for production of

documents. 

b. Documents responsive to request to produce number 2

found in plaintiff’s first request for production of

documents, but limited to guidelines for tapering inmates

off pain medications similar to those taken by plaintiff

before defendant Pai discontinued plaintiff’s prescription

for those drugs. 

c. If, to the best of defendant Pai’s knowledge, these

documents do not exist, or defendant Pai does not have

access to such documents, Pai shall provide plaintiff with a

declaration verifying as much. 

B. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in all other respects. 

4. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2006 motion to compel is denied.

5. Plaintiff’s March 1, 2006 motion to compel is denied.

6. Plaintiff’s March 1, 2006 motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery

is denied.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 9 of 10
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

7. Defendants’ June 8, 2006 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice to renewal no earlier than sixty days from the date of this order and no later than ninety

days. 

8. The dates established in the court’s December 29, 2005 scheduling order for

the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and trial are vacated to be reset if and when

necessary. 

9. Plaintiff’s July 6, 2006 motion to compel is denied.

10. Plaintiff’s August 16, 2006 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: September 29, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

ande0817.mta(2)

Case 2:03-cv-00817-MCE -KJM Document 63 Filed 09/29/06 Page 10 of 10