Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216-15/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

JAMES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER RE MOTIONS

(Docs. 52, 58, 60, 64, 66)

Plaintiff James L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are five motions

from Plaintiff.

I. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel

On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. #52.) Plaintiff complains

that Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of

documents. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on December 28, 2009. 

(Doc. #57.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is premature because Defendants requested an

extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents. 

Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel on January 11, 2010 complaining about Defendants’ lack

of response. (Doc. #58.) Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel on January 22, 2010. (Doc. #60.) 

Plaintiff’s motions to compel do not appear to raise any objections to Defendants’ responses to

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Rather, it appears all three of Plaintiff’s motions to compel were filed

1

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 75 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 5
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

before Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Upon review of the docket,

Defendants requested an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on November

25, 2009. (Doc. #49.) The Court granted Defendants’ request nunc pro tunc on February 2, 2010. 

(Doc. #61.) Defendants’ responses were therefore timely. Plaintiff’s motions to compel will be

denied.

B. Plaintiff’s February 8, 2010 Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

Plaintiff’s motion requests a subpoena duces tecum form “so I can fill it out and have it

served.” Plaintiff is advised that there is no specific form for requesting a subpoena duces tecum. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas. Plaintiff must draft and file

a motion requesting the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel a nonparty to produce

documents or other tangible things. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is therefore entitled

to have a U.S. Marshal effect service of any subpoena duces tecum issued by the Court. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). If Plaintiff wishes to make a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, he must

file a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with specificity

the documents sought and from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that the records are

only obtainable through that third party. Plaintiff has not identified what documents he seeks or who

has those documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. The Court will provide

Plaintiff with a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

C. Plaintiff’s February 22, 2010 Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2). 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ attorney, Ms. Hung, impeded and/ or delayed the examination of

Mrs. Johnson and Sgt. Rangel during their “disposition.” Rule 30(d)(2) provides for sanctions

against a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates a deposition. While the Court would normally

construePlaintiff’smotion liberallyand presume that Plaintiff’s references to “dispositions” actually

mean “depositions,” Defendants’ opposition claims that no depositions have been taken in this case. 

Plaintiff alleges that “[a] copy of disposition [sic] is attached to this motion.” Plaintiff has attached

Defendants response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories to his motion, leading the Court to believe that

///

2

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 75 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s references to “dispositions” actually refer to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and Defendants’

response to those interrogatories.

1. Mrs. Johnson’s “Disposition”

Plaintiff complains that Ms. Hung intentionally provided the “disposition” (interrogatories)

to the wrong person, Mrs. Johnson. Although Plaintiff complains that Ms. Hung engaged in

misconduct byhaving thewrong person respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, the nature of Plaintiff’s

complaint is unclear. Plaintiff complains “[t]hat it was obvious from the first could [sic] of

questions Mrs. Hung had the wrong Mrs. Johnson, but she (Mrs. Hung), delibertly [sic] with willful

intent, chooses to apply in this case a dishonest form of trickery . . . ” The Court has reviewed the

responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and it is unclear how Mrs. Johnson was the wrong person, and

Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how it is clear that the wrong person responded to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories.

2. Verification, Oath and Signatures

Plaintiff also complains that Ms. Hung did not give Sgt. Rangel’s “disposition” under oath

and there is no signed verification that his “disposition” was taken under oath. Defendants’

responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are governed by Rule 33, not Rule 30. Rule 33 requires that

answers to interrogatories must be answered under oath and must be signed bythe person who makes

the answers. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3), (5). Defendants have presented copies of

the answers to the interrogatories, which include verifications signed by the Defendant answering

the interrogatories declaring that the answers are given under penalty of perjury. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Plaintiff complains that “[n]one of the dispositions taken byAttorneyHung of the defendants

are witnessed by Mrs. Hung as proof she conducted the dispositions, or a [sic] assistant did.” Rule

33 contains no requirement that the answers to the interrogatories must be “witnessed” by the

answering party’s attorney. Rule 33 does require that an attorney making any objections to the

interrogatories must provide a signature for those objections. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(b)(5). Ms. Hung has signed all the responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

///

3

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 75 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 5
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. False Evidence

Plaintiff also complains about the fact that “[t]he document [Defendant Rangel] provided to

send my shoes home was not the same as I signed it at the time, it said nothing about the brand of

shoes, which was the wrong brand of shoes anyway. He falsified documents in evidence as true

which are false. A copy of his disposition is attached.” Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear. Plaintiff

is advised that if Defendants have made false statements in documents, Plaintiff may rebut

Defendants’ evidence with evidence of his own in a motion for summary judgment or at trial.

4. Document Production Requests

Finally, Plaintiff complains that he received “mostly none” of the documents that he

requested in his October 23, 2009 first request for production of documents. To the extent that

Plaintiff is challenging Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents,

Plaintiff is advised that he must raise his arguments in a motion to compel under Rule 37. Before

filing a motion to compel, Plaintiff must make a good faith effort to meet and confer with

Defendants regarding any disputes about Defendants’ responses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(a)(1). Plaintiff must also identify the specific document production request that is in dispute and

provide arguments as to why Defendants’ objections to that request are unjustified. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

5. Other Arguments

Plaintiff makes further arguments regarding the propriety of sanctions, such as the fact that

prison officials at the prison where he is currently incarcerated are depriving him of his property. 

Plaintiff is not incarcerated at the same institution where he was incarcerated during the events

described in his complaint, and the correctional officers at his current institution are not parties to

this action. Plaintiff also alleges that he filed criminal complaints against the Office of the Attorney

General, cites various provisions of California penal law, and makes several arguments about this

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over “[Plaintiff’s] right to litigate issues of constitutional

magnitude with the Court.” It is unclear how Plaintiff’s incoherent arguments are relevant to the

matter of discovery sanctions against the Defendants in this action.

///

4

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 75 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 5
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

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed on December 11, 2009, January 11, 2010, and

January 22, 2010, are DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum, filed on February 8, 2010, is

DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed on February 22, 2010, is DENIED; and

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 33, 37 and 45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 75 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 5