Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

(Docs. 31 and 34)

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for a ‘Deposition Upon Written Questions’” and 

on July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Second//Deposition Upon Written Questions.” 

(Docs. 31, 34.) Defendant filed an opposition to the first motion on July 8, 2014, and an 

opposition to the second motion on July 31, 2014. (Docs. 32, 35.) Plaintiff did not file replies and 

the motions were submitted on the record without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff’s first motion seeks an order requiring Defendant to appear before a stenographer 

and answer the questions set forth in the motion, and Plaintiff’s second motion seeks to depose 

forty-nine prison staff members either before a stenographer or via videotaped answers. However, 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 44 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 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

2

an officer must be retained to take responses and prepare the record, and Plaintiff is responsible 

for bearing the costs of the depositions he seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). There is no entitlement to 

take a deposition, and any party seeking to conduct a deposition by written question must comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (in forma pauperis statute); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 31; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (“‘[T]he expenditure of public 

funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .’”) 

(quoting United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086 (1976)).

If Plaintiff is able and willing to compensate an officer to take responses and prepare the 

record, he may notify the Court within thirty days, accompanied by an offer of proof regarding the 

financial ability to compensate the officer. The Court will then take the steps necessary to ensure 

Plaintiff is permitted to schedule and conduct the depositions under Rule 31. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions for depositions by written 

questions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 44 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 2