Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-32/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID NORMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01022-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

Doc. 129

On August 9, 2005, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On March 17, 2010, the Court found

a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force. Doc. 48. On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff

filed a motion to compel. Doc. 129. On February 27, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 132. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply. Docs. 133, 134.

In Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff states Defendants failed to provide records of complaints of

excessive force against Defendants for five years prior to November 4, 2003, the date of the alleged

incident in this case. Mot. Compel at 9, Doc. 129. 

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b). Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may order a party to provide

further responses to “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(3).

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 135 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 2
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 response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, defense counsel submitted a declaration stating

that after receiving Plaintiff’s discovery request, counsel contacted litigation coordinators at

California State Prison, Corcoran and California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State

Prison at Corcoran. Defs. Opp’n, Jeffery Decl., Doc. 132. Litigation coordinators advised defense

counsel that there are no complaints of excessive force against Defendants for five years prior to

November 4, 2003. See id. 

In responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests, Defendants are required to make a reasonable

inquiry and their signed discovery responses certify that they have done so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

Defendants made an inquiry and notified Plaintiff that there are no documents responsive to his

request. Therefore, this court cannot compel Defendants to produce documents that do not exist or

are not in their possession or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). See also United States v. Int’l

Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (a party seeking

production of documents bears the burden of showing the opposing party has control over them).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2012 

7j8cce UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 135 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 2