Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04412/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04412-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD CALVO, et al.

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-4412 JSW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS AND DIRECTING THE

CLERK OF THE COURT TO SEND

A LETTER OF ADDRESS INQUIRY

TO THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

(Docket nos. 21, 22, 25, 26)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), filed this

pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of inadequate medical

care by prison doctors and others at SQSP for a chronic back injury. In an order dated

March 28, 2005, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim for

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and ordered the United States

Marshal's (USM) office to serve the complaint on Dr. Van Pelt, medical clerk Therese

Dawson, and Dr. Donald Calvo, all at SQSP. Service has been returned unexecuted as to

Defendant Calvo and he has not responded to the complaint. Defendants Van Pelt and

Dawson, represented by counsel, have filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for

summary judgment (docket no. 24). Plaintiff has filed his own motion for summary

judgment (docket no. 21), as well as a discovery motion (docket no. 22), a motion for an

extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment

(docket no. 25), and an objection to Defendants' issuance of a subpoena to gain access to

Plaintiff's prison health records (docket no. 26.). The Court addresses these matters in

this order. 

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Service of Defendant Calvo

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against Defendant Calvo because he has

not answered the complaint or otherwise complied with the Court's order to file a 

Case 3:03-cv-04412-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

dispositive motion. It appears from the record, however, that Defendant Calvo was never

served with the complaint. The USM mailed summonses and complaints on April 5,

2005 to all three Defendants at SQSP. A notation on the summons sent to Defendant

Calvo (docket no. 23) states that it was returned to the USM office by SQSP and then it

was remailed on April 12, 2005 to "H.Q." in Sacramento (which the Court assumes is a

reference to the main office of the California Department of Corrections in Sacramento). 

By July 27, 2005, no acknowledgment of service by Defendant Calvo had been received

and the USM office returned the summons to the Court unexecuted.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) contemplates that service of process

normally will be accomplished within four months of the filing of the complaint. 

Although the Court can order the USM to serve process on a defendant when the plaintiff

is indigent, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide a name and address for each

defendant to be served. Both the Court and the California Department of Corrections

recognize, however, that prisoners proceeding pro se will often be unable to obtain

forwarding addresses for prison employees. Accordingly, a system has been established

by which the California Department of Corrections will provide to the Court, under seal, a

forwarding address for the defendant if the Department is in possession of such. 

Therefore, in accord with this system, the Court's docket clerk shall mail an address

inquiry letter to: Staff Attorney, Legal Affairs Division, California Department of

Corrections, 1515 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95815. The letter shall ask for a

forwarding address for Defendant Calvo to be provided to the Court under seal so that the

Court can then order the USM to attempt to serve the complaint on Defendant Calvo.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Defendant Calvo is

DENIED.

II. Plaintiff's Discovery Motion and Objection to Subpoena

On July 26, 2005, before Defendants Van Pelt and Dawson filed their motion for

summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery with the Court. The motion

contains forty requests for the production of documents. This request is premature and is

therefore DENIED. 

Case 3:03-cv-04412-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The proper manner of promulgating discovery is to send demands for documents

or interrogatories (questions asking for specific, factual responses) directly to Defendants. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. If Plaintiff seeks discovery from non-parties, he must serve

them with a subpoena demanding production of documents or deposition testimony. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1), 34(c), 45. The scope of discovery is limited to matters "relevant

to the claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be further limited by court order

if "(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to

obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 

Before promulgating discovery Plaintiff may wish to review Defendants'

dispositive motion to see if it includes documents which Plaintiff seeks. In any event,

Plaintiff should limit his discovery requests to matters relevant to the claims found

cognizable in this action, which at this point consists solely of his medical claim. He

should send the discovery requests to Defendants' counsel, or submit a third-party

subpoena to the Court for service. No motion to compel will be considered by the Court

unless the meet-and-confer requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) and N.D. Cal.

Local Rule 37-1 has been satisfied. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated he is not required to

meet and confer with Defendants in person. Rather, if his discovery requests are denied

and he intends to seek a motion to compel he need only send a letter to Defendants to that

effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him the sought-after information.

Plaintiff objects to Defendants' third-party subpoena commanding the SQSP

Litigation Coordinator to provide them with Plaintiff's prison medical records. The

objection is construed as a motion to quash the subpoena and DENIED. The nature and

extent of Plaintiff's back injuries and the medical treatment he has received while

incarcerated bear directly on his claim for damages.

Case 3:03-cv-04412-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Request for Extension

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2005. On

August 30, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file his opposition. Good

cause appearing, the request is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or by

February 10, 2006. Defendants shall file any reply on or by February 24, 2006. The

motion for summary judgment will be deemed submitted and ready for review on the date

the reply is due. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket no. 21.)

2. The Court's docket clerk shall send a letter of address inquiry to the California

Department of Corrections regarding a forwarding address for Defendant Calvo, as set

forth above.

3. Plaintiff's discovery motion is DENIED. (Docket no. 22.)

4. Plaintiff's motion to quash is DENIED. (Docket no. 26.)

5. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, as set forth above. 

(Docket no. 25.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 13, 2006 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04412-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 4