Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01353-9/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

LARRY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1353 LKK DAD P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

In this order the court addresses three motions filed by the pro se plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FILED AUGUST 25, 2006

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce additional documents in response

to a request for production of documents served on June 19, 2006. Plaintiff disputes defendants’

objection to his requests as vague and argues that each item is relevant to the subject matter of

the lawsuit. The motion is supported by copies of plaintiff’s request and defendants’ response. 

The motion includes a proof of service indicating that the motion was served on defendants on

August 23, 2006. Defendants have filed no opposition to plaintiff’s discovery motion.

In response to plaintiff’s Requests No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, defendants responded

that a reasonable and diligent search was conducted and that defendants are not in possession,

custody, or control of documents responsive to these requests. Plaintiff is advised that a party

Case 2:05-cv-01353-LKK -DAD Document 37 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

cannot be compelled to produce documents other than documents “in the possession, custody or

control of the party upon whom the request is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Plaintiff’s

motion to compel will be denied as to Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

In response to plaintiff’s Requests No. 4 and No. 6, documents were produced. 

Plaintiff has not alleged, argued, or shown that additional documents should have been produced

in response to these two requests. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as to Nos. 4 and 6.

Plaintiff’s Request No. 5 seeks “Any and all complaints, grievances,

(administrative or civil, past or present, filed against the defendants in regards to family visiting”

[sic]. Defendants objected to this request

on the grounds that it [sic] vague as to time, overly broad, and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Without waiving objections, and to the extent plaintiff is

seeking copies of civil complaints, those documents are public

record that can be obtained from the courts.

(Pl.’s Mot. to Compel filed Aug. 25, 2006, Ex. B at 4.) Although plaintiff’s punctuation and

wording are confusing, plaintiff appears to be requesting production of all civil complaints and

administrative grievances ever filed against any of the five defendants on any matter involving

family visits. Plaintiff relies on a conclusory argument that all requested items are relevant to the

subject matter of his lawsuit. He has not shown that every family visiting complaint and

grievance ever filed by an inmate against any of the five defendants will be relevant to plaintiff’s

unique claims concerning family visits. The court sustains defendants’ objections to Request No.

5 on the grounds that the request is vague as to time and overly broad. Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied as to No. 5.

Plaintiff’s Request No. 7 is even more global than Request No. 5: “Any and all

grievances received by the defendants or their agents concerning defendants treatment of all

prisoners that are in and under their care.” Defendants objected to this request on that grounds

that it is “overly broad, vague as to time and subject matter of the grievances, and not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The court sustains defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-01353-LKK -DAD Document 37 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

objections to Request No. 7 on the grounds that the request is overly broad and vague as to time

and subject matter of the documents sought. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as to No. 7.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed August 25, 2006, will be denied.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FILED OCTOBER 11, 2006

Plaintiff’s motion filed on October 11, 2006, is virtually identical to the motion

filed on August 25, 2006. Although plaintiff has added a page to his motion, he merely sets forth

six of his seven requests and reiterates his argument that the documents requested are relevant to

his case. The duplicative motion will be denied.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

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 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but the court cannot require such assistance. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 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

unsigned motion for appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 25, 2006 motion to compel discovery is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s October 11, 2006 motion to compel discovery is denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: November 28, 2006.

DAD:13

edwa1353.mtc31

Case 2:05-cv-01353-LKK -DAD Document 37 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3