Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN MURILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-0266 KJM DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends defendants caused him sleep deprivation in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel defendants to respond to 

discovery, plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel, and defendants’ motion to modify 

the Discovery and Scheduling Order. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny 

plaintiff’s motions, without prejudice to refiling a more specific motion to compel, and grant 

defendants’ motion. 

BACKGROUND

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed here on December 19, 

2016. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part and 

denied in part. (ECF Nos. 57, 58.) One claim remains – plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim that 

////

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 7
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

defendants Holland, Gutierrez, and Ybarra implemented Guard One security checks and allowed 

them to continue despite their knowledge that the checks were depriving plaintiff of sleep. 

After defendants filed an answer, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on 

July 7, 2017 which set a discovery cut-off of December 7, 2017 and a deadline of February 5, 

2018 for filing pre-trial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 62.) On November 16, 2017, the court 

granted plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery cut-off to February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 72.) 

On July 11, 2017, Jorge Andrade Rico filed a notice that his case, No. 2:170-cv-1402-

CKD, is related to the present case and two other cases pending in this court, including the class 

action Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-520 KJM DB P. (ECF No. 64.) On February 2, 2018, 

Judge Mueller related the four cases. (ECF No. 79.) Each has been assigned to Judge Mueller 

and to the undersigned magistrate judge. On February 15, 2018, Mr. Rico filed notices of two 

additional related cases. (ECF Nos. 81, 83.) 

On January 8, 2018 plaintiff filed motions to compel defendants to respond to his first and 

second sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 75.) On 

January 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a second motion to compel. (ECF No. 76.) In this second 

motion, plaintiff seeks further responses to his second set of interrogatories and requests for 

production of documents. In both motions, plaintiff includes a request for the appointment of 

counsel. On January 30, 2018, defendants filed an opposition to the January 8 motion. (ECF No. 

77.) On February 12, 2018, plaintiff filed a document in reply. (ECF No. 80.) 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

I. Legal Standards

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 2 of 7
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 party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery 

requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why 

the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not justified, and (5) why 

the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. 

Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. 

Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can 

obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” United States v. Chapman 

Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery permitted:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, 

and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of 

Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the 

burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). 

Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be 

prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. 

Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal 

citation omitted).

II. Analysis

In his initial motion to compel, plaintiff stated that defendants failed to respond to his 

second set of interrogatories and requests for production. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff also noted that 

defendants had responded to his first set of interrogatories and requests for production, but “did 

not answer questions nor produce[] any documents.” (Id. at 2.) Finally, plaintiff requests that

////

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 7
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

defendants be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000 as plaintiff’s reasonable expenses for preparing 

the motion. (Id.) 

Plaintiff states that he propounded the second set of discovery on defendants on 

November 27, 2017. (Id. at 1.) As defendants point out in their opposition, their discovery 

responses were not due until 45 days after plaintiff propounded the discovery requests. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s January 8 motion to compel responses to the second set of interrogatories 

and requests for production was premature. 

To the extent plaintiff’s first motion seeks to compel responses to his first set of 

interrogatories and requests for production, he fails to explain any basis for his motion. This lack 

of explanation or argument is repeated in plaintiff’s second motion. In the second motion to 

compel, plaintiff simply argues that defendants should be ordered to respond fully to all the 

interrogatories and requests for production. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff does not explain which 

responses are inadequate or why he feels any of the responses are inadequate. 

In his filing in reply to defendants’ opposition, plaintiff explains that his requests are 

mainly meant to identify witnesses and to “obtain vital evidence to help verify the plaintiff’s 

claims.” (ECF No. 80 at 1.) However, plaintiff does not provide any specific arguments or 

identify which discovery responses are inadequate. 

Defendants first argue that the facts at issue in this case involve only plaintiff’s alleged 

sleep deprivation as a result of the Guard One security checks. Therefore, defendants contend, 

questions regarding complaints by other inmates or staff are not relevant. Second, defendants 

argue that plaintiff’s motions should be denied because plaintiff does not identify which of the 

over 100 discovery requests he is challenging. Finally, while defendants objected to plaintiff’s 

request for copies of memoranda regarding the implementation of Guard One security checks, in 

their opposition brief, defendants state that they will, in fact, provide those memoranda to 

plaintiff. 

While plaintiff is acting in pro per, and the court is sensitive to the difficulties he faces in 

complying with legal requirements, plaintiff’s complete failure to specify the inadequacies in 

defendants’ responses renders his motions improper. Plaintiff propounded over 100 separate 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 4 of 7
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

5

discovery requests. The court is not required to sift through each request and each response. 

When bringing a motion to compel, plaintiff must “inform the court which discovery requests are 

the subject of his motion” and “for each disputed response, inform the court why the information 

sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified.” Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at 

*4; see also McCoy, 2016 WL 3196738, at *2. The court will permit plaintiff to renew his 

motion to compel so that he may specify just what he finds objectionable in defendants’ 

responses. In renewing his motion, plaintiff is advised to carefully consider this court’s findings 

below on issues raised by defendants’ opposition. Plaintiff should not move to compel responses 

to discovery that this court finds is not relevant to this action.

First, to the extent plaintiff is arguing that defendants were obligated to comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, that argument is baseless. Rule 26 specifically exempts cases 

brought by prisoners proceeding pro se from its automatic disclosure requirements. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). 

With respect to the objections argued by defendants in their brief, the court first finds that 

defendants’ argument that complaints by other inmates and staff are not relevant is not a valid 

objection. For the year at issue, July 2014 through July 2015, plaintiff is entitled to know whether 

defendants had notice of complaints by other inmates that the Guard One checks were disturbing 

their sleep. While the court agrees that the identity of those inmates and staff is not relevant, the 

number of complaints and the dates they were submitted may be relevant. 

With respect to plaintiff’s requests for log books, the court cannot find any relevance to 

incident logs and lock down logs. However, logs reflecting who was on duty during the time 

period the Guard One checks were disturbing plaintiff’s sleep would be relevant. Plaintiff is 

entitled to information about which officers were conducting checks using the Guard One system 

that caused plaintiff to be deprived of sleep. However, defendants’ argument that providing a 

year’s worth of log books is burdensome is well taken. In fact, in his reply brief, plaintiff appears 

to accept that he does not require an entire year of logs. 

Defendants state that they are “amenable to respond to appropriate, focused discovery 

requests that address Defendants’ objections.” (ECF No. 77 at 4.) In his motion to compel, 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 5 of 7
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

6

plaintiff is encouraged to address defendants’ objections and narrow his requests, where 

appropriate. 

The parties should note that the court does not consider these findings to be a final ruling 

on defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Rather, these findings are provided to 

assist plaintiff in narrowing his motion to compel so that he seeks only that information that is 

relevant to his proceeding.

Plaintiff also requests that defendants be charged $1,000 for his expenses in bringing the 

motions to compel. Because the court did not grant plaintiff’s motions, the imposition of 

sanctions against defendants for “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response” is not 

justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

REQUESTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In both of his motions to compel, plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. He 

provides no reasons for those requests. 

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 district 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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In 

the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 75, 76) are denied without prejudice.

//// 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 6 of 7
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

7

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a renewed motion to 

compel defendants to respond to discovery. Plaintiff is advised that he must:

a. Specifically identify which interrogatories and requests he is moving to compel 

a response;

b. Explain how each interrogatory or request seeks information relevant to 

plaintiff’s claim; 

c. Explain how defendants responded to each interrogatory or request; and

d. Explain why that response is inadequate or improper.

3. Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 78) is 

granted. The cut-off date for discovery is extended through March 31, 2018. The 

deadline for filing dispositive pre-trial motions is extended through May 31, 2018. 

4. Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel are denied.

Dated: February 27, 2018

DLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/muri0266.mtc

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 86 Filed 02/27/18 Page 7 of 7