Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01293-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MACK WEST, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-1293 DAD P

vs.

NOAH DIZON,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on claims raised in plaintiff’s original complaint,

filed May 14, 2012. Therein, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his constitutional rights by

harassing plaintiff and retaliating against him. Several matters are now pending before the court. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

On March 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 22). 

Defendant opposed the motion (ECF No. 27) and plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF No. 30). 

1

/////

 On May 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his reply. (ECF 1

No. 29.) Plaintiff’s reply was delivered to prison officials for mailing on May 12, 2013, and in

accordance with the so-called mailbox rule is timely filed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988). Good cause appearing, the motion for extension of time will be denied as unnecessary. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 8
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 makes several contentions in his motion to compel. First, he contends

that defendant failed to provide certain initial disclosures that plaintiff claims are required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). However, this action is exempt from the initial disclosure requirements

of Rule 26(a)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).

Plaintiff also seeks to compel responses to several requests for discovery

propounded on defendant. First, by request number seven of his first request for production of

documents, plaintiff sough the names of all inmates housed in the V-Wing and U-Wing in Unit

IV in California Medical Facility in May and June 2009. (See Ex. C to Mot. to Compel (ECF

No. 22-2) at 35.) Plaintiff made a similar request in request number seven of his second request

for production of documents, expanding the time period covered by the discovery request to

May-October 2009. (See Ex. E to Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 50.) Defendant objected to

both requests as overbroad and on the grounds that it “seeks information the release of which

could create safety and security concerns for other inmates, and invades other inmates’ right to

privacy” as well as irrelevant information and information not likely to lead to admissible

evidence. (Ex. C to Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 35; Ex. E to Mot. to Compel (ECF No.

22-2) at 50.) He also objected to the second request as duplicative of the first. (Id.) In his

motion to compel, plaintiff says that in a third request for production of documents he modified

the request to seek the name of an inmate house in V-Wing and U-Wing on May 18, 2009, and

the full names and CDCR numbers of two other inmates housed in Y-Dorm on May 10, 2009,

and that defendants have not responded to this request. 

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendants contend that the information sought

by request number seven as presented in plaintiff’s first and second requests for production of

documents is irrelevant and that release of the information sought could raise safety and privacy

concerns. Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s third request for production of documents was

not timely served under the deadlines set in the discovery and scheduling order filed November

/////

2

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 8
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, 2012 (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to that order, discovery requests were to be served sixty days

prior to March 15, 2013. (ECF No. 15 at 6.)

Plaintiff contends that he needs the names and CDCR numbers of the inmates as

well as the names of certain captains, sergeants and correctional officers in order to respond to

discovery requests received from defendant Dizon. However, defendant Dizon has not moved to

compel discovery responses from plaintiff, and the time to do so has passed. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated any other basis for requiring defendant Dizon to provide the information requested

in request number seven of plaintiff’s first and second requests for production of documents as

modified in plaintiff’s third request for production of documents. The court will not require a

further response to these discovery requests.

By request number one of his first request for production of documents, plaintiff

seeks any and all grievances submitted against defendant Dizon concerning alleged mistreatment

of inmates. (Ex. C to Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 22-2).) Defendant Dizon objected to this

discovery request on several grounds, provided plaintiff with the grievance filed by plaintiff

against him, and represented that he does not have any other inmate grievances in his custody or

control. The court finds that defendant Dizon’s response to this discovery request is sufficient

and no further response will be required.

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to requests two, three and five of his

first request for production of documents. By these discovery requests plaintiff sought

production of “policies, directives, or instructions to corrections officers concerning the use of

force against persons and inmates at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations

[sic] [(CDCR)] and California Medical Facility [(CMF)]”; responses to grievances filed by

plaintiff in May and June 2009 concerning defendant Dizon; and policy directives and other

documents related to interactions with seriously mentally ill inmates in CDCR and at CMF. (Id.

at 33-35.) Defendant Dizon objected to all of these discovery requests. In addition, as to

requests two and five, defendant contends that he does not have such information in his custody

3

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 8
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

or control. (Id. at 33, 35.) With respect to request number two, defendant Dizon referred

plaintiff to title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual. 

(Id. at 33.) With respect to request number three, defendant Dizon contended that the

information plaintiff seeks is irrelevant and he asserted his own privacy rights. (Id. at 34.)

Defendant Dizon cannot be required to produce documents that he does not have

in his custody or control. No further response to requests two or five of plaintiff’s first request

for production of documents will be required by the court. 

In a privilege log attached to his response to plaintiff’s first request for production

of documents, defendant Dizon represents that a California Medical Facility Institution Head

Review Use of Force Review (and attachments), consisting of twenty-three pages, is responsive

to request number three of the first request for production of documents. (Ex. D to Mot. to

Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 37.) Defendant asserts that this document contains confidential 2

information including the names and statements of other correctional staff and the names and

CDCR numbers and statements of other inmates, and that it is part of defendant Dizon’s

personnel file and therefore protected by numerous state and federal statutes as well as the

constitutional right to privacy. Good cause appearing, defendant Dizon will be directed to

submit this document to the chambers of the undersigned for in camera review. Defendant shall

identify with specificity all portions thereof which he contends should not be disclosed to

plaintiff together with citation to specific legal authority protecting those matters. In addition,

defendant shall include with the submission any documents that were provided to plaintiff in

response to said grievances, which shall be specifically identified in the in camera submission.

Finally, plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to requests one, two, three,

four, five, and seven of his second request for production of documents. As plaintiff notes,

requests one, two, four, and seven essentially repeat the same requests raised in his first request

 See fn. 3, below. 2

4

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 4 of 8
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

for production of documents. (See Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 13.) For the reasons set 3

forth above, no further responses will be required to requests one, two, four or seven of plaintiff’s

second request for production of documents. 

By request number three and five, plaintiff seeks materials concerning

“preventing, intervening, or failure to, reporting staff misconduct” at CMF and CDCR. (Ex. E to

Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 48), as well as policies concerning employee retaliation

against inmates. (Id. at 49.) Defendants interpose a number of objections to these discovery

requests. With respect to request number three, defendant Dizon also represents that he has no

such documents in his custody or control and refers plaintiff to § 33030.3 of title 15 of the

California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual. With respect to requests

number five he also refers plaintiff generally to title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and

the Department Operations Manual. The court finds defendant’s response to these discovery

requests to be sufficient and no further response will be required.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant will be required to submit for in

camera review the document responsive to request number three of plaintiff’s first request for

production of documents in accordance with this order. In all other respects plaintiff’s motion to

compel will be denied. 

II. Motions for Additional Time to Conduct Discovery

On April 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion styled as a “motion of excusable

neglect.” (ECF No. 25.) On April 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a forty-five day

extension of time to complete discovery. (ECF No. 26.) By both motions, plaintiff seeks an

 Request number one of plaintiff’s second request for production of documents seeks the 3

same material sought by request number three of plaintiff’s first request for production of

documents, within an expanded time frame. Pursuant to this order, defendant will produce for

the court’s in camera review the document identified in the privilege log that accompanies his

response to this request. Plaintiff’s request number four seeks essentially the same material

sought by request number five of plaintiff’s first request for production of document. (See Exs.

D and E to Motion to Compel (ECF No. 22-2) at 35, 49.) 

5

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 5 of 8
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

extension of time to conduct discovery in this action. Defendant opposes the motion (ECF No.

31) and plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF No. 37). 4

By these motions, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of a prior order denying his

request for leave to extend the discovery deadline, (see Order filed Apr. 12, 2013 (ECF No. 24),

and leave to propound the third request for production of documents that he has already served

on defendant (see discussion above). In the April 12, 2013 order, the court denied plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time to serve a third request for production of documents because

plaintiff had not tendered the proposed third request for production of documents with the

motion. The court observed that since plaintiff had not tendered the proposed third request, the

court was “unable to determine whether plaintiff should be permitted to serve that request

regardless of the outcome of his motion to compel, or whether resolution of the motion to compel

would moot the request for leave to serve on defendant a third document production request.” 

(Order filed Apr. 12, 2013 (ECF No. 24) at 2.) Plaintiff has now submitted to the court a copy of

that third request for production of documents. (Ex. J to Mot. for Extension of Time to Complete

Discovery (ECF No. 26).) 

After reviewing plaintiff’s third request for production, the court finds all but one

of those requests to be essentially redundant of plaintiff’s prior discovery requests or, where

refined, subject to some or all of the same objections already resolved above in this order. The

court will, however, direct defendant to produce to plaintiff all documents responsive to request

number four of plaintiff’s third request for production of documents, by which plaintiff seeks “all

documents, incident reports, and/or CDCR 128’s (chronos or informationals) that you filed or

written or printed against plaintiff for allegedly threatening you on or about May 10, 2009.” (Id.

/////

 On May 10, 2013, defendant filed a motion for extension of time to oppose the 4

motions. (ECF No. 28.) Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion will be granted nunc pro

tunc and defendant’s opposition deemed timely filed.

6

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 6 of 8
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

at 64.) In all other respects, plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to conduct discovery will

be denied. 

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

39.) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that 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). 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

motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

IV. Motions for Extension of Time

Finally, plaintiff has filed two motions for extension of time to respond to

defendant’s June 7, 2013 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33). (See ECF Nos. 38 and

40.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to oppose defendant’s

summary judgment motion will be granted. Plaintiff’s opposition will be due forty-five days

from the date of this order.

V. Conclusion

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Within ten days from the date of this order defendant shall submit to the

chambers of the undersigned for in camera review the document identified in the privilege log

responsive to request number three of plaintiff’s first request for production of documents and

request number one of plaintiff’s second request for production of documents. Defendant shall

identify with specificity all portions thereof which he contends should not be disclosed to

plaintiff together with citation to specific legal authority protecting those matters. In addition,

defendant shall include with the submission any documents that were provided to plaintiff, which

7

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 7 of 8
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

shall be specifically identified in the in camera submission. In all other respects plaintiff’s March

18, 2013 motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s April 24, 2013 and April 25, 2013 motions for extension of time to

complete discovery (ECF Nos. 25 and 26) are denied except that within twenty days from the

date of this order defendants shall produce to plaintiff all documents responsive to request

number four of plaintiff’s third request for production of documents.

3. Plaintiff’s May 13, 2013 motion extension of time to file reply (ECF No. 29) is

denied as unnecessary.

4. Defendant’s May 10, 2013 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 28) is

granted and defendant’s May 20, 2013 opposition (ECF No. 31) to plaintiff’s April 24, 2013 and

April 25, 2013 motions is deemed timely filed. 

5. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2013 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39) is

denied. 

6. Plaintiff’s June 24, 2013 and August 2, 2013 motions (ECF Nos. 38 and 40)

are granted. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendant’s June 7, 2013 motion for summary judgment.

DATED: September 3, 2013.

DAD:12

west12cv1293.mos

8

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 41 Filed 09/04/13 Page 8 of 8