Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01195-0/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

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case is before the court on fourteen motions and requests filed by the pro se

plaintiff and one request filed by defendants.

REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME

I. Plaintiff’s Motion Filed May 12, 2005 (#72)

Plaintiff moved for a thirty-day extension of time to file a reply to opposition filed

by defendants on May 9, 2005. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion will be granted nunc

pro tunc, and plaintiff’s reply filed May 18, 2005, will be deemed timely.

II. Defendants’ Request Filed May 25, 2005 (#75)

Defendants requested a thirty-day extension of time to June 24, 2005, to respond

to plaintiff’s first request for admissions. Good cause appearing, defendants’ first request to

extend their time to respond to plaintiff’s request for admissions will be granted nunc pro tunc.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 25
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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS

I. Motion to Compel Discovery Filed April 7, 2005 (#54)

In a motion dated March 23, 2005, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to respond

to the request for production of documents he served on February 8, 2005. Pursuant to the

discovery order filed in this action on October 12, 2004, responses to discovery requests are due

forty-five days after the request was first served. The forty-fifth day after February 8, 2005, was

March 25, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion was filed prematurely and will be denied without prejudice.

II. Motion to Compel Discovery and Sanctions Filed April 13, 2005 (#56)

In a motion dated April 8, 2005, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to serve

further responses to three discovery requests: plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, first request

for production of documents, and second request for production of documents. Exhibits to the

motion include a copy of plaintiff’s interrogatories and copies of defendants’ responses to the

two document requests, except that copies of the documents produced by defendants are not

included. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Discovery filed Apr. 13, 2005, Exs. A, B & C.) Plaintiff did not

provide a copy of defendants’ responses to his interrogatories or set out those responses in the

text of his motion.

Plaintiff’s motion commences with a section titled “Background,” in which he

addresses the timeliness of defendants’ responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff asserts

erroneously that defendants were required to respond to his requests within thirty days. The

discovery order issued on October 12, 2004, requires the parties to respond to discovery requests

within forty-five days.

Plaintiff’s motion consists of twenty-six numbered paragraphs attacking most of

the responses to the three discovery requests at issue. Defendants’ opposition addresses the first

seventeen of plaintiff’s paragraphs but does not address the remaining paragraphs, which concern

plaintiff’s first request for production of documents. Defendants’ copies of their responses to the

document requests do not include copies of the documents they produced.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 25
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

 Defendants responded to Nos. 1 through 26 because plaintiff skipped from No. 16 to No.

18, omitting No. 17.

3

Plaintiff begins by complaining that defendants did not respond to Nos. 27

through 54 of his first set of interrogatories. In response, defendants cite Rule 33, which limits

the number of interrogatories that may be served on any one party to twenty-five, including

discrete subparts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to serve

interrogatories in excess of twenty-five, and defendants were not obligated to respond to more

than twenty-five interrogatories.1 Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Nos. 27 through 54

will be denied.

With regard to many interrogatories, plaintiff complains that defendants failed to

provide documentation with their responses. In response, defendants contend that plaintiff did

not make proper requests for production of documents. Plaintiff is advised that a party who

seeks documents should do so in a properly filed request for production of documents. Plaintiff’s

motion to compel production of documents requested by interrogatory will be denied.

A. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories

1. No. 26

In No. 26, plaintiff asked, “How many days were African Americans locked down

in 2001? (A, B, C, D yards specifically).” Defendant Terhune objected but answered that he was

not employed by the CDC during the times material to plaintiff’s complaint and lacks possession

of, knowledge of, and control over the information sought. The remaining defendants objected

but referred plaintiff to the lockdown memos for 2001 produced in response to Request No. 1 of

plaintiff’s first request for production of documents.

Plaintiff denies that the number of days African-Americans were locked down in

2001 is contained in the memos. In response, defendants argue that the documents show the

dates of lockdown as well as when the lockdowns were lifted or partially listed.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 25
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

Rule 33(d), titled “Option to Produce Business Records,” provides as follows:

Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or

ascertained from the business records of the party upon whom the

interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit or

inspection of such business records, including a compilation,

abstract or summary thereof, and the burden of deriving or

ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party

serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient

answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the

answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford the party

serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit

or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts

or summaries. A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit

the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can

the party served, the records from which the answer may be

ascertained.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).

Defendants responded to plaintiff’s interrogatory No. 25 by citing business

records that were produced in response to plaintiff’s first request for production of documents. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he cannot derive or ascertain the number from the records

identified, and it appears that the burden of counting the number of days African-American

inmates were locked down in 2001 is substantially the same for both plaintiff and defendants. 

Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to No. 26.

2. No. 4

In No. 4, plaintiff asked, “Please state the training you received from California

Dept. of Corrections, any recognized accredited school education necessary or related to your

official capacity and/or duties. (please list the dates of completion of said training or

education).” Defendant Terhune objected to the interrogatory as not relevant and provided no

information. The remaining defendants answered with a list of training courses.

Plaintiff first asserts that defendants “did not respond to interrogatory #4,”

clarifies that “[n]o defendant listed the dates of training completion as requested,” and concludes

that the failure to list dates is “a failure to disclose.” Defendants assert that plaintiff’s claims

regarding this interrogatory are false. Defendant Terhune states that he was a gubernatorial

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 4 of 25
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

 Defendants incorrectly transcribed the word “outlined” as “obtained” in their responses.

5

appointment, was not trained by the Department of Corrections, and should not be compelled to

provide plaintiff with any dates. Defendants’ opposition is silent as to the complete failure of the

remaining defendants to respond to plaintiff’s request for dates.

Plaintiff’s assertion that defendants did not list the dates of training completion is

not false, and the defendants who listed training courses have offered no argument that supports

their failure to do so. Defendants Johnson, Runnels, Wong, and Felker will be compelled to

serve further responses to No. 4 in which they provide the completion dates for all training

courses listed in their previous responses. 

3. Nos. 6, 7, & 8

In Nos. 6, 7, and 8, plaintiff asked the defendants to “set forth” the procedures for

reporting and investigating acts of racial discrimination against staff and inmates. Defendant

Terhune objected and provided no answers. The remaining defendants described procedures.

Plaintiff complains that no defendant “set forth the procedure” and attached the

document relied upon in the response. The court finds that the defendants set forth the relevant

procedures by describing them. Nothing in these three interrogatories required more. 

Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to Nos. 6, 7, and 8.

4. No. 10

In No. 10, plaintiff asked, “Were the procedures you outlined2 above for reporting

and investigating racial discrimination followed concerning the lockdowns and/or inmate appeals

in this action? (from May 2003 to May 2003) Please provide memos, referrals, investigative

reports and determinations or dispositions.” Defendants Runnels, Johnson, and Wong answered

in the affirmative. Defendants Terhune and Felker objected on several grounds.

Plaintiff complains that no defendant disclosed the procedures, no defendant

provided documents, and he intended the interrogatory to read “from May 2002 to May 2003.” 

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 5 of 25
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

Plaintiff’s interrogatory as written requires only a yes or no answer, and defendants were not

required to produce documents in response to an interrogatory. A party may not amend his

discovery request by motion to compel. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further

responses to No. 10.

5. Nos. 11, 12, & 13

Plaintiff complains that defendants failed to attach documents to support their

responses to Nos. 11, 12, and 13. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to

Nos. 11, 12, and 13.

6. No. 14

In No. 14, plaintiff asked, “If you did not report any or all of the allegations of

racial discrimination contained in the appeals (May 2002 to May 2003), please explain why not?”

All defendants objected on various grounds. Defendant Johnson responded that if he observed

an incident of racial discrimination by either staff or inmates, he would report the incident.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to respond. Defendants reiterate their

objections. The court finds plaintiff’s question to be ambiguous, requiring an answer only if the

party did not report allegations of racial discrimination contained in unspecified appeals during a

one-year period. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to this flawed

question.

7. Nos. 15 &16

Plaintiff complains about defendants’ failure to provide documentation in

response to Nos. 15 and 16. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to Nos.

15 and 16.

8. No. 19

In No. 19, plaintiff asked, “Are African American subgroups ever segregated from

each other? If so, why? and when? (Dates and Yards).” All defendants objected to the

interrogatory as not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 6 of 25
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

evidence. Defendant Wong further responded as follows: “Not waiving objection, groups are

segregated based on gang affiliation, not race when incidents occur between particular factions.” 

Defendant Felker further responded as follows: “Not waiving objections, yes. When there is an

incident all inmates are locked down until the investigation is completed. I do not know the

specific dates. That information would be contained in the lockdown memos for each

lockdown.”

Plaintiff asserts that “[a]ll defendants did not respond to #19.” He argues that the

interrogatory is relevant “as the disclosure would demonstrate that factional disputes exist within

the “Black” designation which would contradict the policy of locking down all Blacks for the

acts of one.” In opposition, defendants assert incorrectly that defendant Terhune objected but

answered that inmates are not segregated on the basis of race but on the basis of gang affiliation. 

Defendants argue that the interrogatory has no bearing on the complaint and will not lead to

admissible evidence.

In his complaint, plaintiff claims that African-American inmates at High Desert

have been and are subjected to on-going racial discrimination. He alleges that African-American

inmates are classified into six groups according to affiliation and that all six groups are punished

when any group is involved in misconduct, while inmates of other races are not placed on

lockdown when a subgroup of their race engages in misconduct. Plaintiff also alleges that

African-American inmates are placed on lockdown for longer periods of time than inmates of

other races who are placed on lockdown for the same type of offense. Interrogatory No. 19 is

relevant to plaintiff’s claims and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Defendants’ objections are overruled, and defendants Terhune, Runnels, and Johnson

will be compelled to serve further responses to No. 19. 

9. Nos. 20 & 24

Plaintiff complains that defendants failed to provide documents in response to

Nos. 20 and 24. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to Nos. 20 and 24.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 7 of 25
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

B. Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to turn over any of the documents requested

in his second request for production of documents. Plaintiff rejects defendants’ assertions that

relevant documentation was provided in response to his first request. Plaintiff also disputes

defendants’ objections. In opposition, defendants characterize plaintiff’s assertions as a claim

that defendant Terhune did not respond to the second request for production of documents. 

Defendants argue that they responded by (1) noting as to several requests that documents

responsive to those particular requests were produced in response to plaintiff’s first request and

(2) objecting to the remainder of the requests.

Plaintiff’s second request for production of documents contains sixteen discrete

requests. In response to Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14, defendants referred plaintiff to their response to his

first request for production of documents. Plaintiff has not provided copies of the documents

previously produced and has failed to demonstrate that defendants should be compelled to serve

further responses to Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14.

In response to Nos. 4 through 13, 15, and 16, defendants objected to each request

on the grounds that the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. In response to No. 16, defendants also objected on the

grounds that the request is over broad, burdensome, and vague. Having reviewed plaintiff’s

requests and his arguments concerning relevance, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate that the documentation he seeks is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. The court finds that No. 16, seeking “documentation of all

measures taken by California Department of Corrections, Administrative, Disciplinary,

Classification, etc. against African American inmates involved in or as a result of lockdowns,”

and further requiring the name of every inmate and the measures taken, is over broad,

burdensome, and vague. The court sustains defendants’ objections to Nos. 4 through 13, 15, and

16 and will not compel the defendants to serve further responses to any of these requests.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 8 of 25
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

C. Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents

1. Nos. 1 & 2

In No. 1, plaintiff requested all lockdown memos of lockdowns on A, B, C, and D

yards of all races from 2001 to 2004. In No. 2, plaintiff requested documentation of the date and

manner of each lockdown described in request No. 1. In response to these requests, defendants

provided lockdown memos from January 1 through June 2003.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to include program summaries up to the

present, memos, plans of operation, and investigation reports, and removed inmates’ names from

all documents. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a request for lockdown memos and

documentation of the date and manner of each lockdown encompasses program summaries,

memos other than lockdown memos, plans of operation, and investigation reports. Nor has

plaintiff established the relevance of inmates’ names. Defendants will not be compelled to serve

further responses to these requests. 

2. Nos. 5, 6, 7, & 8

In Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, plaintiff requested various departmental policies and

procedures. In response to each of these requests, defendants cited state regulations and sections

of the manual referred to as the D.O.M. and advised plaintiff that the documents are available for

inspection and copying in the High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) law library.

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce the documents on the ground that

the law librarian will not permit him to copy any documents other than documents that are to be

filed with the court. Defendants will be compelled to produce the documents cited in response to

Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, or to arrange for plaintiff to make copies of them at HDSP.

3. No. 11

In No. 11, plaintiff requested the departmental policy and procedure for the use of

administrative segregation and general population segregated and/or concrete yards. Defendants

objected to the request on the ground that plaintiff seeks information which, if produced, would

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 9 of 25
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

constitute a threat to the safety and security of the institution and the staff and inmates housed

within it.

Plaintiff argues that he is “simply requesting the policy that permits or authorizes

the use and the procedure for using Ad-seg and segregated concrete yards.” Plaintiff asserts that

inmates use these yards and their schedules are published. Plaintiff suggests that the court

conduct an in camera inspection of the responsive documents. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

need for in camera review. Defendants will be compelled to serve a further response to No. 11

citing any state regulations and sections of the D.O.M. that are responsive to the request as

clarified by plaintiff in his motion to compel. Defendant are to produce the documents or arrange

for plaintiff to make copies of them at HDSP.

4. Nos. 10 & 12

In No. 10, plaintiff requested “departmental policy and procedure regarding the

mental health of lockdown inmates. (Including but not limited to policy on evaluations,

obtaining mental health care, availability of mental health staff in the cell block).” In No. 12,

plaintiff requested “all documentation related to the mental health of the African American

inmate population as a result of any and all lockdowns.” Defendants objected that these requests

are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in

that plaintiff has not claimed mental health issues.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to these requests on the ground that

he raised both physical and mental health concerns in his complaint and other filings. Plaintiff

argues that he has witnessed black inmates go crazy during lockdowns, demonstrating the

psychological effect of discriminatory lockdowns. Plaintiff does not cite specific allegations in

his complaint

Although plaintiff’s complaint does not allege mental health issues per se, he

alleges that discriminatory lockdowns are punitive, and he describes in detail the consequences of

such lockdowns. (Compl. at 4-5). Mental health issues are plainly implicated by extended

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 10 of 25
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

deprivation of exercise, recreation, religious services, work, education, contact visits, dayroom

access, telephone access, quarterly packages, canteen, and vendor purchases, as well as the

uncompensated loss of money promised for food sales, particularly if the deprivation is

discriminatory. (See id.)

Plaintiff’s request for “departmental policy and procedure regarding the mental

health of lockdown inmates,” including policies and procedures regarding mental health

evaluations, provision of mental health care, and the availability of mental health staff in cell

blocks during lockdowns, may lead to admissible evidence of the psychological effect of

discriminatory lockdowns. Defendants will be compelled to serve a further response to No. 10.

Plaintiff’s request for “all documentation related to the mental health of the

African American inmate population as a result of any and all lockdowns” appears to request

documents maintained in the medical files of individual inmates. Plaintiff has not demonstrated

that this request will lead to admissible evidence of the psychological effect of discriminatory

lockdowns. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to No. 12. This ruling

does not preclude plaintiff from serving a request for production of documents such as reports,

studies, or statistical compilations regarding the psychological effect of lockdowns during the

relevant period of time, as opposed to the mental health records of individual inmates.

5. Other Issues

Plaintiff asserts that in response to his “first request, specifically D yard request,”

defendants did not disclose unlock proposals, interview questions, lockdown status reports,

confidential information memos, or weekly status reports for numerous lockdowns in 2002 and

2003. If plaintiff is referring to No. 1 of his first request for production of documents, that

request was limited to lockdown memos. If plaintiff is referring to some other request within his

first request for production of documents, the court is unable to find a request that encompasses

the listed documents. Defendants will not be compelled to serve a further response to any

request on the basis of plaintiff’s argument concerning his “first request.”

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 11 of 25
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

12

Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to produce any documentation on

lockdowns from 2004 to the present in response to Nos. 1 and 2. In No. 1, plaintiff requested

lockdown memos “from 2001 to 2004.” In No. 2, plaintiff asked for further documentation for

the same period specified in No. 1. Plaintiff did not request documentation to the present, and

his use of the word “to” rather than “through” arguably limits the request to lockdowns through

2003. Defendants will not be compelled to serve further responses to Nos. 1 and 2.

Plaintiff asserts that there are no supporting documents for any D yard lockdown

“from November to June 2003.” Plaintiff does not specify the request at issue, and defendants

will not be compelled to serve further responses on the basis of this contention. 

Plaintiff disputes defendants’ objections to Nos. 4, 10, and 11 based on

confidentiality, security concerns, and threats to safety. Plaintiff requests full disclosure and

states that he is not opposed to in camera inspection of the documents produced. By these three

requests, plaintiff sought injury reports for all staff involved in and/or victimized by any inmate

assault precipitating a lockdown of any race or racial group (No. 4), departmental policy and

procedure regarding mental health of lockdown inmates (No. 10), and departmental policy and

procedure for use of administrative segregation and general population segregated and/or

concrete yards (No. 11). The court has already determined that defendants should be required to

serve further responses to Nos. 10 and 11. The court sustains defendants’ objections to No. 4 on

the ground that injury reports for staff are not relevant to plaintiff’s claims.

D. Summary

Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed April 13, 2005, will be granted as to Nos. 4 and

19 of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and as to Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of plaintiff’s first

request for production of documents. Defendants Johnson, Runnels, Wong, and Felker will be

required to serve further responses to Interrogatory No. 4, providing completion dates for all

training courses listed in their previous responses. Defendants Terhune, Runnels, and Johnson

will be required to serve further responses to Interrogatory No. 19. Defendants will be required

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 12 of 25
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

13

to produce documents in response to Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, or arrange for plaintiff to make copies of

them at HDSP. Defendants will be required to serve further responses to Nos. 10 and 11 citing

any state regulations and sections of the D.O.M. that are responsive, and to produce the

documents or arrange for plaintiff to make copies of them at HDSP.

Plaintiff asserts that “[d]efendants’ disclosure, after five months, is selective,

evasive and incomplete requiring this court’s intervention compelling discovery and the

imposition of substantial sanctions.” Plaintiff has not demonstrated that sanctions are required or

appropriate. The motion to compel and for sanctions will be denied except as to two

interrogatories in plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and six requests in plaintiff’s first request

for production of documents.

III. Motion to Compel Filed May 4, 2005 (#68)

Plaintiff titled this motion his second motion to compel, despite the fact that he

filed two previous motions to compel. Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his third and fourth

requests for production of documents. No opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff has provided copies of defendants’ responses to the requests at issue. 

The third request for production of documents was served on February 8, 2005, and the fourth

request was served on March 14, 2005. Defendants’ response to the third request was due March

25, 2005. The response to the fourth request was due April 28, 2005. Defendants’ responses

dated April 20, 2005, were untimely as to the third request and timely as to the fourth.

A. Third Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff objects to defendants’ responses to all seven requests included in this

discovery request. Defendants did not produce any documents.

Defendants’ objections to No. 1 are overruled. Defendants will be required to

produce all memoranda and other documents that contain a proposal for beginning, continuing,

or ending any lockdown at HDSP from March 2001 through January 2005. Defendants’

objections to Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are sustained. Plaintiff is advised that information about

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 13 of 25
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

14

lawsuits filed against the defendants may be requested by propounding interrogatories asking

each defendant to state the case name, number, court, and status of every civil or criminal action

filed against him or her on any claim alleging racial discrimination with regard to lockdown

policies. Similar information may be requested as to complaints filed with any state or federal

agency. Defendants’ objections to No. 7 are sustained in part because a request for information

is not a request for a document. Defendants will be required to produce a copy of the document

called a “kite” that was the basis for the December 31, 2002 lockdown of all African American

inmates at HDSP.

B. Fourth Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff objects to defendants’ responses to all five requests included in this

discovery request. No documents were produced.

Defendants’ objections to No. 1 are sustained. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the

relevance of HDSP inmate orientation manuals for 2001 through 2004. Defendants’ objections

to Nos. 2 and 3 are sustained because these requests do not seek production of documents. 

Defendants’ objections to Nos. 4 and 5 are overruled. In response to No. 4, defendants will be

required to produce all policies, memos, proposals, and reports related to the forfeiture of African

American inmates’ funds for the period from January 1, 2001, to the present. In response to No.

5, defendants will be required to produce records of all food sales in which inmates other than

African American inmates were allowed to participate while on lockdown for the period from

January 1, 2001, to the present.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is predicated in part on his mistaken belief

concerning the due date of his fourth request for production of documents. No sanction will be

imposed other than the sanction of deeming the motion unopposed.

IV. Motion for Sanctions Filed June 8, 2005 (#77)

By motion filed June 8, 2005, plaintiff seeks sanctions for defendants’ alleged

failure to serve timely responses to requests for admissions. Plaintiff asks the court to deem all

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 14 of 25
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

15

matters in the requests admitted and to impose monetary sanctions. Plaintiff states that his

requests were served on April 8, 2005, making defendants’ responses due on May 23, 2005. On

May 25, 2005, defendants filed a request for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s requests

for admissions, indicating that their responses were due on or before May 25, 2005. In

opposition to defendants’ request for extension of time, plaintiff asserts that the request is

“defendants’ fourth request to extend time for responding to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.” 

Plaintiff is mistaken. The request is defendants’ first request to extend time to respond to

plaintiff’s request for admissions. Defendants’ previous requests to extend time concerned other

discovery requests.

Rule 36 provides generally that matters are admitted unless, “within thirty days

after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow,” the

party to whom the request is directed serves written answers or objections on the party requesting

the admissions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). The court has found good cause to grant the extension of

time requested by defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied. 

V. Motion for Sanctions Filed July 11, 2005 (#79)

By his motion filed July 11, 2005, plaintiff again seeks sanctions for defendants’

alleged failure to serve timely responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Plaintiff reiterates

his request that the court deem all matters admitted pursuant to his previous motion and further

argues that some of defendants’ responses to his requests were received after the time requested

by defendants in their request to extend time. Plaintiff also complains that the responses were

not served simultaneously.

Plaintiff’s motion was served on July 5, 2005. On July 29, 2005, defendants filed

and served their opposition to the motion. (See Findings and Recommendations filed July 14,

2004, at 10-12.) Defendants’ untimely opposition will be disregarded.

Plaintiff states that the responses by defendants Runnels and Wong were served

on June 2, 2005. Plaintiff does not identify the date on which defendant Johnson’s response was

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 15 of 25
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

16

served but states that he received the response on June 8, 2005. Plaintiff indicates that defendant

Felker’s response was served on June 21, 2005. All responses were served prior to June 24,

2005, the due date pursuant to the extension of time requested by defendants and granted by the

court in this order. Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions on the basis of his contention that some of

defendants’ responses were untimely. Nor is he entitled to sanctions on the basis of the four

defendants’ service of their responses on different dates prior to the due date. Finally, plaintiff is

not entitled to sanctions or an order deeming matters admitted merely because he disagrees with

specific responses. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied.

VI. Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions Filed September 14, 2005 (#84)

By his motion served September 11, 2005, and filed September 14, 2005, plaintiff

seeks to compel defendants to respond to his fifth request for production of documents. Plaintiff

also seeks sanctions.

Plaintiff states that his fifth request for production of documents was served on

July 10, 2005, and that no response had been received as of September 3, 2005. The docket does

not reflect that defendants sought an extension of time to serve a response to plaintiff’s fifth

request for production of documents. Defendants have not filed opposition to plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel and for sanctions will be granted. As a

sanction, defendants will be required to serve copies of all documents requested, without

objection, within thirty days from the date of this order. If defendants served untimely responses

to the fifth request for production of documents, defendants will be required to serve further

responses producing any documents that were not produced on the basis of one or more

objections.

VII. Motion to Compel Filed October 17, 2005 (#85)

By motion served October 10, 2005, plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to

his sixth request for production of documents. Plaintiff describes his sixth request for production

of documents as containing six requests, all lockdown specific, to which defendants offered one

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 16 of 25
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

17

general objection. Plaintiff argues that documents to be produced during discovery need not

themselves be evidence and need only to relevant to the subject matter involved in the action and

the issues raised by the pleadings.

Plaintiff’s motion was served on October 10, 2005. On November 7, 2005,

defendants filed and served their opposition to the motion. Defendants’ untimely opposition will

be disregarded.

In Request No. 1, plaintiff requested “copies of all lockdown memos, reports,

orders from June 2003 to present, including but not limited to the “rolling lockdowns” begun

August 08, 2005, at High Desert State Prisons on A, B, C, D yards.” In Nos. 2 through 4,

plaintiff requested various categories of documents pertaining to the rolling lockdowns that

commenced on August 2, 2005. In No. 5, plaintiff requested documents pertaining to such

lockdowns at other California state prisons. In No. 6, plaintiff requested “all related or

referenced reports, memos and documentation included with or supplementing all lockdowns at

High Desert State Prison (A, B, C and D yards) from June 2003 to present.” Defendants objected

that the requests are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence in that (1) plaintiff filed his complaint on June 4, 2003, (2) defendants have

produced documents for lockdowns from January 2001 through June 2003, and (3) the

documents now requested are related to time frames outside the complaint.

The court has rejected defendants’ view that plaintiff’s complaint is a challenge to

specific lockdowns that occurred prior to July 2003.

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not support

defendants’ reading of the complaint as a collection of claims

attacking six specific lockdowns of black inmates as improperly

racially motivated. . . . [P]laintiff alleges a broad claim of racial

discrimination arising from the repeated lockdown of all AfricanAmerican inmates regardless of the affiliation of the inmate or

inmates who engaged in the misconduct that gave rise to the

lockdown.

(Findings and Recommendations filed July 14, 2004, at 12, adopted in full by Order filed Oct. 1,

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 17 of 25
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

18

2004.) “It is evident that this civil rights action presents an attack on defendants’ lockdown

policy regarding African-American inmates at High Desert” and that plaintiff exhausted available

administrative remedies with regard to his challenge to the policy. (Id. at 15.) “Plaintiff’s

identification of seven lockdowns that occurred within a one-year period demonstrates that the

lockdown at issue in plaintiff’s grievance was not an aberration but the result of a policy that has

repeatedly resulted in the violations alleged by plaintiff.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks punitive damages

for past deprivations and injunctive relief to prevent further deprivation of his rights.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his sixth request for production

of documents will be granted except as to Request No. 5, which seeks documents that are not

relevant to the lockdown policy at High Desert State Prison and do not appear to be reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

OTHER MOTIONS AND REQUESTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF

I. Motion to Substitute Parties Filed March 14, 2005 (#51) 

Plaintiff has brought a motion to substitute parties pursuant to Rule 25(c). 

Plaintiff seeks leave to substitute a new party as Director of Corrections. Plaintiff states that he

named defendant Terhune as the director but now believes he was mistaken with regard to

defendant Terhune’s participation in denying plaintiff’s inmate appeal. Plaintiff also notes that

there have been several interim or acting directors since defendant Terhune held the position. 

Plaintiff states that he will ascertain the names of the acting directors before discovery is

complete and will notify the court. Plaintiff moves, in the alternative, to substitute Appeals

Examiner J.G. Arceo as director’s designee.

Plaintiff appears to be referring to Rule 25(d), which provides as follows:

(1) When a public officer is a party to an action in his

official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns or otherwise

ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and the officer’s

successor is automatically substituted as a party. Proceedings

following the substitution shall be in the name of the substituted

party, but any misnomer not affecting the substantial rights of the

parties shall be disregarded. An order of substitution may be

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 18 of 25
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

19

entered at any time, but the omission to enter such an order shall

not affect the substitution.

(2) A public officer who sues or is sued in an official

capacity may be described as a party by the officer’s official title

rather than by name; but the court may require the officer’s name

to be added.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

For purposes of plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief, the current

director of the agency in charge of California state prisons is automatically substituted for

defendant Terhune. Plaintiff need not take any action but may request an order of substitution. 

In light of the possibility that further changes could occur during the pendency of this action,

plaintiff should delay seeking an order of substitution until a later time.

For purposes of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages for past violations of civil

rights, plaintiff is advised that he should neither dismiss defendant Terhune nor substitute

another party in his place unless plaintiff has determined that defendant Terhune had no

involvement in or responsibility for the policy that is alleged to have deprived plaintiff of his

civil rights. Similarly, if plaintiff wishes to pursue claims for damages against Appeals Examiner

J.G. Arceo as a participant in the alleged denial of plaintiff’s rights, plaintiff must amend his

complaint to add a defendant and allege facts demonstrating the new defendant’s personal

involvement in the denial of plaintiff’s rights.

Plaintiff’s motion to substitute parties will be denied without prejudice. If

plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must submit an amended complaint as an exhibit to a

motion for leave to amend. An amended complaint will supersede the current complaint and

must therefore be a complete complaint that alleges all claims against all defendants. Undue

delay and prejudice to current or new defendants may be grounds for denying a motion to amend. 

Any amended complaint must be screened by the court to determine whether it states cognizable

claims against all named defendants. Time is required for service of an amended complaint. For

all of these reasons, any motion to amend should be filed at the earliest time possible.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 19 of 25
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

20

II. Motion in Limine and Other Requests Filed April 20, 2005

Plaintiff’s motion in limine and other requests were served on April 17, 2005. 

Defendants served timely opposition.

A. Motion in Limine (#62)

Plaintiff seeks to preclude defendants from introducing certain evidence

concerning his criminal records and those of any inmate witnesses he might call to testify at trial. 

Defendants oppose the motion as premature.

At a later stage of the litigation, the court will issue a Pretrial Order that sets trialrelated deadlines, including a deadline for filing motions in limine. Plaintiff’s pending motion

will be denied as premature.

B. Request for Deposition at Government Cost (#63)

Plaintiff seeks leave to depose defendant Runnels at government expense. Citing

his indigency and in forma pauperis status, plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford the cost of

a deposition. He contends that it would not be fruitful to present his questions by interrogatory

or request for admissions. Plaintiff believes he can complete the deposition in less than two

hours. Plaintiff requests an officer of the court to administer oaths, a tape recorder, two hours of

blank tape, and a court reporter who will allow plaintiff to maintain custody of the deposition

tape, all at government expense, and further requests preparation of the original transcript or a

copy that plaintiff can keep. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring prison officials to allow him to

retain the deposition tape in his cell. Plaintiff asserts that this one deposition is likely to avoid

the cost of a trial or shorten the trial and would eliminate his need for any additional discovery.

Defendants argue that plaintiff has been unable to ask good questions in his

interrogatories and is unlikely to do better in a deposition. Defendants contend that the request

would be a waste of defendant Runnels’ time.

The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant in federal court is

proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 20 of 25
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

21

federal in forma pauperis statute, under which plaintiff was permitted to file this case without

prepaying the filing fee, does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for deposition costs. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is any authority for the order he

seeks. Nor has he shown that deposing defendant Runnels is either necessary or likely to avoid

the necessity for trial. Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

C. Request for Additional Interrogatories (#64)

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting him to propound interrogatories in excess of

twenty-five, requiring each defendant to answer #27 through #54 as propounded in plaintiff’s

first set of interrogatories, and allowing plaintiff to serve a second set of interrogatories

propounding fifteen new interrogatories to three defendants. Defendants oppose the request on

the ground that failure to make good use of the twenty-five interrogatories permitted by law is

not good cause to be allowed to serve more interrogatories. Defendants assert that the proposed

new interrogatories will not serve to obtain information which will help plaintiff prove his case

and are directed toward harassment and argument rather than information that might show

discriminatory intent or effect.

The court will grant plaintiff’s request to propound interrogatories in excess of

twenty-five. However, the court will not require defendants to respond to Nos. 27 through 54 of

plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Nor will the court grant plaintiff leave to serve the

proposed second set of interrogatories. Plaintiff must omit document requests from his new

interrogatories and may not propound interrogatories that require the defendants to attest to

previous responses or otherwise address the discovery process rather than the subject matter of

plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff may serve a new second set of interrogatories in which he propounds

up to fifteen additional interrogatories to each defendant.

D. Request for Expert Witness at Government Cost (#65)

Plaintiff seeks leave to secure the services of a mental health expert at government

expense to testify at trial regarding the psychological effects of institutional racism and the

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 21 of 25
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

22

phenomenon of African Americans assaulting staff in order to be transferred from High Desert. 

Plaintiff contends that an expert will be beneficial to the jury. He indicates that he is

communicating with potential experts. 

Defendants oppose the request on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint contains

no claim of mental illness and therefore the testimony of a mental health expert is not relevant to

matters properly before the court. Defendants suggest that plaintiff can establish damages by his

own testimony and by mental health records, if he has been diagnosed with a mental illness.

Expert witnesses appointed by the court may be compensated “from funds which

may be provided by law in criminal cases and civil actions and proceedings involving just

compensation under the fifth amendment.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(b). In all other cases, the

compensation for a court-appointed expert must be paid by the parties. Id. The present case is

not a criminal case, a proceeding involving just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, or a

case for which funds are provided by law. In the absence of funds from which a court-appointed

mental health expert can be compensated, plaintiff’s request will be denied. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989).

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Filed September 1, 2005 (#83)

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is informed that district courts

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,

1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 14, 2005 motion to substitute parties pursuant to Rule 25(c)

(#51) is denied without prejudice;

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 22 of 25
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

23

2. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2005 motion to compel discovery (#54) is denied without

prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s April 13, 2005 motion to compel discovery and sanctions (#56) is 

granted as to Nos. 4 and 19 of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and as to Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,

and 11 of plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, and is otherwise denied; within

thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall serve further responses as follows:

a. Defendants Johnson, Runnels, Wong, and Felker shall serve further

responses to Interrogatory No. 4, providing completion dates for all training

courses listed in their previous responses;

b. Defendants Terhune, Runnels, and Johnson shall serve further

responses to Interrogatory No. 19;

c. Defendants shall produce the documents requested in Nos. 5, 6, 7 and

8, or arrange for plaintiff to make copies of the documents at HDSP; and

d. Defendants shall cite any state regulations and sections of the D.O.M.

responsive to Nos. 10 and 11 and produce the documents or arrange for plaintiff

to make copies of them at HDSP;

4. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2005 motion in limine (#62) is denied;

5. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2005 request for deposition at government cost (#63) is

denied;

6. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2005 request for additional interrogatories (#64) is

granted; plaintiff may serve a second set of interrogatories in which he propounds up to fifteen

additional interrogatories to each defendant; the interrogatories shall comply with this order;

7. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2005 request for expert witness at government cost (#65)

is denied;

8. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2005 motion to compel (#68) is granted as to No. 1 and part

of No. 7 of plaintiff’s third request for production of documents, granted as to Nos. 4 and 5 of

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 23 of 25
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

24

plaintiff’s fourth request for production of documents, and otherwise denied; within thirty days

from the date of this order, defendants shall serve further responses as follows:

a. In response to No. 1 of plaintiff’s third request for production of

documents, defendants shall produce all memoranda and other documents that

contain a proposal for beginning, continuing, or ending any lockdown at HDSP

from March 2001 through January 2005;

b. In response to No. 7 of plaintiff’s third request for production of

documents, defendants shall produce a copy of the document called a “kite” that

was the basis for the December 31, 2002 lockdown of all African American

inmates at HDSP;

c. In response to No. 4 of plaintiff’s fourth request for production of

documents, defendants shall produce all policies, memos, proposals, and reports

related to the forfeiture of African American inmates’ funds for the period from

January 1, 2001, to the present;

d. In response to No. 5 of plaintiff’s fourth request for production of

documents, defendants shall produce records of all food sales in which inmates

other than African American inmates were allowed to participate while in

lockdown for the period from January 1, 2001, to the present;

9. Plaintiff’s May 12, 2005 motion to extend time to file a reply (#72) is granted

nunc pro tunc, and plaintiff’s reply filed May 18, 2005, is deemed timely;

10. Defendants’ May 25, 2005 request for an extension of time to June 24, 2005,

to respond to plaintiff’s first request for admissions (#75) is granted nunc pro tunc;

11. Plaintiff’s June 8, 2005 motion for sanctions (#77) is denied;

12. Plaintiff’s July 11, 2005 motion for sanctions (#79) is denied;

13. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2005 motion for appointment of counsel (#83) is

denied;

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 24 of 25
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

25

14. Plaintiff’s September 14, 2005 motion to compel and request for sanctions

(#84) is granted; within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall serve copies of all

documents requested in plaintiff’s fifth request for production of documents, without objection;

and

15. Plaintiff’s October 17, 2005 motion to compel (#85) is granted except as to

Request No. 5 of plaintiff’s sixth request for production of documents; within thirty days from

the date of this order, defendants shall serve further responses to Requests Nos. 1 through 4 of

plaintiff’s sixth request for production of documents.

DATED: December 13, 2005.

DAD:13

spen1195.cln

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 88 Filed 12/14/05 Page 25 of 25