Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103-14/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

JOHN D. VOTH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2103 LKK GGH P

vs.

T. ALBRIGHT, 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 are: 1) plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to requests for

admission and to interrogatories, filed on June 22, 2007, to which defendants filed their

opposition on July 9, 2007; 2) plaintiff’s motion to compel production in response to requests for

production of documents, filed on June 27, 2007, to which defendants filed their opposition on

July 11, 2007, after which plaintiff filed a reply on July 23, 2007. 

“Final” Amended Complaint

This action was originally filed on October 6, 2004. Defendant Corrie was

dismissed as was a claim of excessive force regarding a K-9 police dog, but plaintiff was granted

leave to amend, by Order, filed on February 11, 2005, and he filed a first amended complaint, on

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 11
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

 Because plaintiff’s allegations arise in the context of an arrest, and not while he was an 1

incarcerated prisoner, it is his rights under the Fourth (not Eighth) Amendment that are

implicated. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 394,109 S. Ct. 1865, 1867-1868, 1871

(1989), citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7-22, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 1699-1707 “(claim of

excessive force to effect arrest analyzed under a Fourth Amendment standard).” 

2

March 9, 2005, and the matter then proceeded against three Sacramento County Sheriff’s

Deputies: Timothy Albright, Timothy Wetzel and David Corrie on plaintiff’s claims of violations

of his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights due to the alleged excessive force used by 1

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies Albright, Wetzel and Corrie in a vehicle pursuit and arrest

on October 3, 2003. Defendants answered the first amended complaint on May 17, 2005. Upon

plaintiff’s filing of a motion to amend the first amended complaint based on information gathered

during discovery regarding the identification of additional sheriff’s deputies allegedly involved in

the incident at issue, to which defendants filed opposition, plaintiff was allowed to amend his

pleadings and was directed to file a final amended complaint because it was unclear in his

proposed second amended complaint whether he intended to drop one defendant while adding

others. See Order, filed on October 20, 2006. Plaintiff filed his final amended complaint, on

Nov. 7, 2006, which defendants answered on Nov. 9, 2006.

In the final amended complaint (FnAC), plaintiff alleges that, on October 3, 2003,

at around 12:30 a.m., on his way to a friend’s residence to provide the friend a ride to his vehicle,

plaintiff stopped his Chevrolet Blazer at the corner of Darwin Street and Kathryn Way in the City

of Sacramento, then proceeded past the intersection to make a left turn on El Camino Avenue. 

FnAC, pp. 7-8. At that point, plaintiff saw the emergency lights on a white police vehicle 

activate and alleges that, in an attempt to evade police because he had allowed his vehicle

registration to expire and was certain his car would be impounded, he sped up and evaded police

for about ten minutes until “the ‘PIT’ maneuver was performed by the pursuit vehicle,” forcing

plaintiff to a stop on a residential lawn. Id. at 8. Plaintiff, still trying to escape, attempted to

move his vehicle forward onto the street to drive away, at which point another police car rammed

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 11
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

the passenger side door, stopping him. Id. 

Plaintiff then exited the Blazer “and took off”; after plaintiff was running, taking

several steps away from the vehicle, a K-9 police dog grabbed plaintiff by his upper right thigh,

the force of which caused plaintiff to go face first onto the paved street. Id. Plaintiff writhed in

pain while the police dog continued to bite and tug at his upper thigh. Id. About thirty seconds

later, plaintiff was surrounded by “a swarm of deputies.” Id. Defendant Sacramento County

Deputy Sheriff Timothy Wetzel arrived first, according to plaintiff, jamming his knee into

plaintiff’s back, grabbing plaintiff’s left arm and twisting it up and around behind plaintiff’s

back, and striking plaintiff on the back of his head with a metal flashlight, approximately

eighteen inches long. Id. Plaintiff made eye contact with defendant Wetzel; plaintiff screamed

out in pain because the blows were so excruciating. Id. at 8-9. 

“Almost simultaneously,” four other sheriff’s deputies surrounded plaintiff, and

shortly thereafter blood began to flow down plaintiff’s back and face. Id. at 9. Defendant Wetzel

grabbed plaintiff’s right arm, pulling it around and back and fastening handcuffs so tightly that

plaintiff screamed loudly for this defendant to stop. Id. The police dog continued to bite and rip

at plaintiff’s upper thigh after the handcuffs were secured. Id. As the five defendant deputies

began kicking and punching plaintiff on his torso and back, plaintiff observed defendant

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Albright kneeling to the right of the K-9 police dog,

named Stazzo, holding Stazzo’s mid-section with both arms, pulling back and forth, tearing at

plaintiff’s thigh, coaxing the dog to continue its assault, saying: “Good Boy, Good Boy!!” Id. 

Plaintiff made eye contact with defendant Albright, begging him to order the dog to stop biting

him to no avail; instead defendant Albright responded by smiling as he continued to excite and

incite the dog. Id. Although plaintiff was not resisting, another officer, whom plaintiff believes

to have been defendant Wetzel, was twisting plaintiff’s arms up as plaintiff lay face down, still in

Stazzo’s grasp. Id. Only after one of the officers yelled “Blood! Blood!” did defendant Albright

order the dog to “release” plaintiff. Id. 

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 11
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

Plaintiff was unsure of who did what but he could feel and hear the defendants,

especially the “foul, angry, venomous” epithets shouted about plaintiff by defendant Deputy

Gooler, whom he believes is one of those who inflicted kicks and punches upon him as plaintiff

lay face-down handcuffed. FnAC, pp. 9-10, 12. Defendant Deputy Corrie “stepped up to the

plaintiff’s head and did a football style drop-kick.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff was able to make eye

contact with this defendant as well. Id. Because defendant Deputy Long was riding as a partner

in the same vehicle as defendant Corrie, plaintiff assumes defendant Long was involved in the

“attack” upon him as well, and believes Long to have kicked and punched him as well during the

incident. Id. at 10, 12-13. Plaintiff began drifting in and out of consciousness after the kick to

the head. Id. Plaintiff has also named Deputy Leon as a defendant because his name figures in

many of the reports plaintiff has “discovered,” and plaintiff avers that defendant Leon was

present and was a witness and/or participant in the arrest incident from which plaintiff’s

excessive force allegations arise. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Gooler and Long actively

participated in the attack upon him, and that defendant Leon may well have as well. Id. at 11-13.

Plaintiff seeks to proceed on a Fourth Amendment claim that his right to be free

of excessive, unjustified force during his arrest was violated by defendants. Id. at 10. Plaintiff

states that he believes the actions of the defendants were retaliatory, which he conjectures

accounts for the alleged viciousness of the attack. Id. at 10-11. He states that what motivated

the violence was that the defendants erroneously believed that plaintiff was someone who had

escaped them earlier, although plaintiff goes on to say that he was convicted of crimes which he

did not commit, which conviction is on appeal. Id. at 11. He claims that a charge against him of

assaulting the K-9, Stazzo, was dropped so that the prosecution would not have to allow at trial

the gory photos of injuries inflicted upon plaintiff while he was helpless. Id. The court notes, of

course, that the circumstances of plaintiff’s criminal trial, conviction and appeal, of course, are

irrelevant to this civil rights action. 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 11
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 Plaintiff expressly waives any claim to injunctive relief. FnAC, p. 4. 2

5

Plaintiff was able to obtain color photographs that the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Dept. took of him while he was unconscious and bleeding on the ground. Id. Plaintiff

alleges that there were additional Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dept. close-up photos taken of

plaintiff’s “gaping wounds” at the U.C. Davis Medical Center, which defendant Leon, who

escorted plaintiff to the medical center witnessed. Id. Plaintiff seeks unspecified money

damages only, including punitive damages. Id. at 14. 2

Motions to Compel

First Motion

Plaintiff avers that he served set one of his requests for admission and sets one,

two and three of his interrogatories upon the (newly named) defendants, Deputies Jeffrey Long,

David Leon and Todd Gooler, on April 19, 2007. Motion to Compel (MTC), p. 1. Plaintiff

moves to compel responses to requests for admission Nos. 55, 56, and 57 from the defendants

just named and seeks interrogatory responses to set two from these individuals and responses, as

to set three of plaintiff’s interrogatories, from defendant Leon only. MTC, pp. 2-3, Exhibit (Exh.

A).

Requests for Admission (RFA) Nos. 55, 56, and 57, to which defendants initially

interposed objections on privacy grounds, ask defendants Leon, Gooler, and Long, respectively

each to admit having had previous complaints of excessive filed against themselves within the

last five years. Opposition (Opp.), pp.16-17. Defendants have informed the court that they have

subsequently provided supplemental responses, denying plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 56 and 57 because

neither defendant Long or Gooler have any such complaints filed against them for the five-year

period for which the Sheriff’s Dept. keeps such records. Opp., p. 1. Plaintiff’s motion as to

these requests, 56 & 57, will be denied as moot. Defendant’s concede that a citizen complaint

was filed against defendant Leon in 2002, alleging excessive force, but assert that an

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 11
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

investigation determined the complaint to have been “unfounded,”; such a determination,

according to defendants, “clearly established that the allegation was not true.” Id., citing Cal.

Penal Code 832.5(d)(2). Defendants, nevertheless, state their willingness to submit the

documents relating to the allegation to the court for in camera review and subject to the existing

protective order in this matter. The court, therefore, will grant plaintiff’s motion, therefore, as to

plaintiff’s RFA No. 55, to the extent that the documents will be ordered to be submitted for the

court’s in camera review. 

As to his interrogatories, plaintiff acknowledges that he exceeded the 25-

interrogatory limit, in his set two and set three interrogatories, as to defendants Gooler, Leon and

Long, a limitation of which he states that he was aware, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, but

believed was somehow to be permissibly exceeded simply by his serving the defendants as well

as the court with the interrogatories. MTC, p. 3. Plaintiff states that the discovery requests were

returned by the court, and admits that he failed to move for leave to serve the additional

interrogatories. Id. Plaintiff maintains that he will be severely prejudiced by not being able to

obtain the additional responses, and adds that although defendants served their responses timely,

he believes that the responses were not actually responded to timely because they were

accompanied by notices that verifications were to follow. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff includes as Exh. E,

what appears to defendants’ responses to Interrogatories 22-25, with the notices attached. 

Subsequently, plaintiff filed, on June 20, 2007, the verifications that were sent to him from

defendants with a letter dated June 15, 2007. 

Plaintiff includes as Exh. B to his initial motion to compel, defendant Leon’s

objections to all the interrogatories in sets two and three as exceeding the 25-question limit of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, without leave of court. Exh. B to the MTC also contains the same basis for

objections to plaintiff’s set two interrogatories to defendants Long and Gooler. This portion of

the motion will be denied because plaintiff failed to provide the interrogatories that are at issue,

nor to even characterize them. Other than simply conclusorily claiming their significance,

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 6 of 11
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

plaintiff does not thereby permit the court to evaluate their relevance or meritoriousness. Nor can

the court locate any documents in the case docket which plaintiff alleges he filed in the court at

some point but without seeking leave to exceed the interrogatory limit. 

Second Motion

Plaintiff seeks a further response/production to requests for production of

documents upon defendants Leon, Gooler and Long, including as Exh. A, to his second motion to

compel (MTC2), his requests and defendants’ responses. As to many of the requests, defendants

state that they have previously produced the documentation referenced, i.e., all documentation

pertaining to plaintiff’s October 3, 2003, arrest. MTC2, Exh. A. In addition to discovery

responses/production defendants have provided to plaintiff, defendants also reference the

previous production that was ordered subject to a protective order after in camera review with

regard to documents sought as to defendants Albright, Wetzel and Corrie. 

Plaintiff protests that he does not have the documentation related to the three

newly named defendants, Leon, Gooler and Long. Plaintiff takes issue with defendants’ response

to Requests for Production, Nos. 10 through 13, 17, and 20 through 23. Plaintiff takes particular

issue with defendants response to Document Request No. 10, wherein plaintiff asks for 

any photos taken of plaintiff’s injuries when he was taken to and

while he was at the Medical Center for treatment. These photos

were taken by Sacramento County Sheriff Department employees

or their agents in the presence of Deputy Leon while plaintiff was

in his custody after his arrest and before the plaintiff was

transported to the county jail. These photos were not produced

during the last discovery even though they were asked for. Now,

the photos are requested because Deputy Leon was present when

they were taken. These photos were taken by the Sacramento

County Sheriff Department or their agents and are some of the

most relevant and important aspects of discovery as it relates to

this complaint.

Response to Request No. 10

Copies of all photographs taken of plaintiff by the Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Department were produced to plaintiff on

November 21, 2005 in response to a previous request.

MTC2, Exh. A. 

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 7 of 11
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

Defendants’ response to this inquiry indicates that they have no further

photographs in their custody, possession or control responsive to the request, and the court

cannot compel further production on that basis. 

Request No. 11

Produce any and all grievances, complaints or other documents

received mentioning the defendants or their agents at the

Sacramento County Sheriff[’s] Department concerning

mistreatment of persons arrested by the defendants Leon, Gooler,

and Long. This relates to any memoranda, investigative files, or

other documents created in response to such documents, since they

became employees of the Sacramento County Sheriff[’s]

Department.

Response

Defendants object to this request as it relates to privileged and

private documentation protected by California Penal Code Section

832.7, California Government Code § 6254, and Federal and State

Constitutional privacy rights. 

Request No. 12

Produce any and all grievances, complaints or other documents

mentioning the defendants or their agents of other law enforcement

agencies they may have worked for prior to their current

employment. This includes any memoranda, investigative files,

contained within their personnel files or records. 

Response

Defendants object to this request as it relates to privileged and

private documentation protected by California Penal Code Section

832.7, California Government Code § 6254, and Federal and State

Constitutional privacy rights.

Request No. 13 Produce any reprimands given to any of these

defendants in relation to any complaint or disciplinary actions that

had at issue an excessive use of force before, during or after an

arrest, in any capacity of their employment as law enforcement

officers.

Response

Defendants object to this request as it relates to privileged and

private documentation protected by California Penal Code Section

832.7, California Government Code § 6254, and Federal and State

Constitutional privacy rights.

As to all of these requests, defendants, in opposition, state that they have provided supplemental

responses indicating, as they did in opposition to the preceding motion to compel, that the

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 8 of 11
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

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dept. has no complaints of excessive force on record within the

period of time for which such records are maintained (five years) as to defendants Long and

Gooler and that as to defendant Leon, there is only a 2002 citizen complaint alleging excessive

force which was determined to be “unfounded.” Opp., p. 1. The court has already stated that all

records regarding this 2002 complaint will be submitted to this court for in camera review. In

their opposition, defendants conclude: “Other than the record on this 2002 complaint against

Deputy Leon, no other documents exist responsive to any of plaintiff’s requests, which have not

already been produced.” Opp., p. 2. The court cannot order further production where no

additional responsive documents exist; however, it is not entirely clear to the court that

defendants are referencing the personnel files of each of these defendants (see below).

As to Request No. 17, concerning the Internal Affairs investigation of the incident

at issue, as well as any record of investigations involving the defendants and any other incident

relating to use of excessive force, defendants state explicitly that the documents have already

been produced pursuant to the court’s protective order. The court has previously reviewed all the

documents submitted with respect to the Internal Affairs investigation of the incident at issue, as

well as of any Internal Affairs investigations, if any, of any other incident relating to allegations

of excessive force with respect to defendants Albright, Wetzel and Corrie. It is not entirely

evident to the court that the court would have reviewed any other Internal Affairs investigation of

any claim of excessive force by the newly named defendants, Deputies Long, Gooler and Leon. 

See below. As to Request No. 20, plaintiff seeks any information defendants “believe to be

protected, privileged, confidential or official,” relating to plaintiff’s arrest for this court’s in

camera review to determine relevance. Defendants’ response is that there are no additional

documents other than those which have already been produced under the protective order of the

court. The court cannot compel defendants to produce further documents that do not exist. 

Defendants respond to plaintiff’s request (No. 21) for in camera review by the

court of any complaints or grievances alleging excessive use of force by any of the “included

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 9 of 11
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

defendants,” with an apparent non sequitur (“N/A”), somehow indicating that the request is not

applicable, which the court does not accept. See below. Defendants seek to invoke privilege

and privacy again in objection to Request Nos. 22 and 23, with regard to plaintiff’s requests for

documentation regarding administrative determinations of allegations of excessive force by

defendants Gooler, Long and Leon, defendants’ opposition, but their referenced supplemental

response seems to make clear that defendants have no further documents to produce other than

the 2002 complaint regarding defendant Leon. But see below.

The court will not engage again in the discussion in its prior Order, filed on

October 20, 2006, regarding the balancing test that the court must engage in, as regards material

claimed to be privileged, to “weigh the potential benefits of the disclosure against the potential

disadvantages.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Martinez v. City of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677 (E.D.Cal. 1990). It may be that defendants Gooler,

Long and Leon have no record of excessive force complaints or grievances (other than that noted

as identified by defendants above); however, plaintiff is correct that the October 20, 2006, Order,

spoke only to plaintiff’s discovery requests regarding the previously named defendants: Albright,

Wetzel and Corrie. Since it was in that Order that plaintiff was granted leave to file a final

amended complaint, naming the new defendants, it does not appear that defendants would have

produced for in camera review all records of excessive force grievances or complaints with

respect to individuals not yet named as defendants. On the other hand, the court accepts that

defendants have certainly produced to the undersigned all relevant documents, to the extent that

they exist, with regard to defendants Albright, Wetzel and Corrie, and all documents related to

the arrest at issue and the Internal Affairs investigation arising from the incident (which would

have included references to the newly named defendants). There will be no further production

required as to any documents related to the previously named defendants or to the arrest

generally or to the Internal Affairs investigation and report involving the incident that gives rise

to this cause of action. 

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 10 of 11
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

However, the court will require the newly named defendants, Gooler, Long

and Leon to produce, to the extent that any such documents exist, within thirty days, to the

undersigned any and all records of any complaint or grievance alleging excessive force by

any of these defendants, Long, Gooler, and Leon, maintained in the personnel records or

files of each of them. This, of course, includes, but is not limited to, the 2002 citizen

complaint alleging excessive force by defendant Leon and the subsequent investigation of

that complaint. Personal data, such as the defendants’ social security numbers and home

addresses, should be redacted from any documents prior to submission to the court for its

in camera review.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to Requests for Admissions and

Interrogatories from defendants Long, Gooler, and Leon, filed on June 22, 2007 (#77) is granted

as modified and set forth above as to RFA No. 55; denied as moot as to plaintiff’s Requests for

Admission Nos. 56 and 57; and denied as to plaintiff’s Interrogatories set two and three

propounded upon the newly named defendants.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses/production with

respect to defendants Long, Gooler, and Leon, filed on June 27, 2007(#79), is granted to the

extent that the court herein requires the newly named defendants, Gooler, Leon and Long, to

produce to this court for an in camera review, within thirty days, redacting their personal data,

any and all records of any complaint or grievance alleging excessive force by any of them

maintained in the personnel records or files of each of them, including but not limited to, the

2002 citizen complaint alleging excessive force by defendant Leon and the subsequent

investigation of that complaint; the motion is denied as to any other requests.

DATED: 03/06/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/voth2103.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 87 Filed 03/07/08 Page 11 of 11