Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05479/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05479-3/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RODNEY WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OFFICER B. VERDUZCO, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5479 REC DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(DOC 53)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

This action proceeds against correctional officers Verduzco, Bicknell, Castillo, Heredia, and

Comstock on plaintiff’s claims that these defendants subjected him to excessive force during a cell

extraction on May 13, 2001 at Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

On May 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his request for

production of documents Request Numbers 1 through 6. Defendants filed an opposition to the

motion on May 31, 2005. Defendants provided additional documents responsive to plaintiff’s

request with their opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Case 1:03-cv-05479-OWW -DLB Document 63 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Request Number 1. Plaintiff seeks documents relating to his movement history during his

incarceration at North Kern State Prison. This request appears to be resolved in that defendants have

provided documents relating to plaintiff’s movement history for the period of August 30, 2000 to

September 3, 2003.

Request No. 2. Plaintiff seeks the names and locations of all inmates who were housed in his

building at the time of the incident. Defendants objected to the request as overly broad but have

provided plaintiff with the names of inmates who potentially had sight of his cell. Plaintiff argues

that he needs the names of all inmates in his housing section because they may be able to provide

statements regarding prior harassment of plaintiff and other inmates showing a pattern of abuse

leading up to the May 13, 2002 incident. 

Plaintiff’s request as drafted is overly broad. In general, each party has the right to discover

“any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed.R.Civ.Proc.

26(b)(1). Inmates who witnessed the cell extraction and inmates who may have been subject to cell

extractions or other disciplinary actions may have testimony relevant to plaintiff’s excessive force

claim. However, plaintiff’s request generally seeking the names of all inmates that were housed in

his unit on the day of the incident is simply too broad. 

Request Number 3. Plaintiff seeks the names of all correctional guards who worked in his

unit from January 13, 2001 to September 13, 2001. Defendants objected to the request as overly

broad and irrelevant but provided plaintiff with the log containing the officer roster and official

visitors to the unit on May 13, 2001. Plaintiff argues that there are officers depicted in the videotape

of the incident that he cannot identify. 

Plaintiff’s request is overly broad as to the time period requested. Officers on duty on the day

of the incident may have testimony relevant to the claims or defenses in this case, however plaintiff

fails to demonstrate how testimony from officers who were not on duty that day is relevant. Plaintiff

has been provided the names of the officers on duty on May 13, 2001, which should include the

unidentified individual in the videotape. If plaintiff seeks specific information about particular

Case 1:03-cv-05479-OWW -DLB Document 63 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

officers who were not on duty the day of the incident, he is free to propound additional and more

specific interrogatories. 

Request No. 4. Plaintiff seeks the North Kern State Prison manuals relating to the use of

pepper spray. Defendants objected to the request as vague but produced the 2001 Specification

manual for the MK -9 Aerosol Projector and the departmental procedures regarding “oleoresin

capsicum” in effect at the time of the incident. Plaintiff argues that he needs information on the

effects of the use of pepper spray and the training provided to CDC employees on the use of pepper

spray.

It appears that defendants have provided all of the information they have related to this

request. Defendants are not required to create documents or perform studies in response to discovery

but are only required to produce documents in their “possession, custody or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

34(a).

Request Number 5. Plaintiff seeks documents relating to his daily activities in

administrative segregation. This request appears to have been resolved in that defendants have

provided the inmate segregation record of daily activity forms for plaintiff for the period of time he

was housed in administrative segregation.

Request Number 6. Plaintiff seeks the “Unit Log Book” for the four month period prior to

and following the incident. Defendants objected as overly broad and irrelevant but provided the unit

log book for May 13, 2001. In his motion, plaintiff simply argues that the log books “contain

information that could be relevant within the realm of my case.”

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to this request. He has failed to demonstrate why the log

books for days other than the day of the incident are relevant. 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to production of

documents is DENIED. Defendants have provided sufficient responses to the request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05479-OWW -DLB Document 63 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 3