Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6258 REC SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 45) 

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)). On April 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to

compel. Defendants Rawers and Alameida (“defendants”) filed an opposition on April 28, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to interrogatory numbers 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,

and 25 directed to defendant Rawers, and to all interrogatories directed to defendant Alameida.

Plaintiff objects to defendant Rawers’ responses to numbers 11, 13, 14, 20, and 21 on the

ground that defendant’s citation to regulation numbers is evasive. The court has reviewed the

interrogatories in question and finds plaintiff’s objection to be without merit. Absent a showing by

plaintiff that he cannot access the regulations, responses referring plaintiff to the applicable

regulation numbers are not improper. A reading of the interrogatories and the responses thereto does

not support a finding that the responses are incomplete and/or evasive.

Plaintiff’s objects to defendant Rawers’ responses to numbers 22 through 25 on the ground

that his responses are incomplete and/or evasive. Plaintiff takes issue with defendant Rawers’

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 51 Filed 05/20/05 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

2

objection to the relevancy of the interrogatories, which relate to gang issues. The court has reviewed

the interrogatories and is in agreement with defendants that they are not relevant. “Parties may

obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any

party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim that defendants

substantial burdened plaintiff’s religious exercise by punishing him for failing to comply with the

grooming regulations, brought pursuant to RLUIPA. Plaintiff’s claim does not involve any gangrelated issues. 

Finally, plaintiff objects to defendant Alameida’s responses on the ground that he gave the

same answers that Rawers did. This is not a legal objection and is without merit. Defendants are

represented by counsel, who drafted their responses. Plaintiff is entitled to responses to his properly

served discovery requests. Plaintiff is not entitled to and may not demand unique, individually

worded responses from each defendant. Lack of spontaneity is one of the disadvantages to

interrogatories. See JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE

TRIAL § 11:1662 (2005) (With interrogatories, “[t]here is little likelihood of unguarded responses

. . . .”).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed April 13, 2005, is HEREBY

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 51 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2