Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02215/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02215-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERS PATRICK DICKEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2215 MCE PAN P

vs.

MARK CHURRAY, ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several motions are pending herein.

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In his October 27, 2003 complaint, plaintiff alleges defendant failed to protect

plaintiff when, on November 3, 2002, two inmates approached plaintiff and stabbed him

numerous times, including twice to his chest and four times to his back. Plaintiff suffered a

pierced left lung and a major artery above his heart was also pierced. Plaintiff contends

defendant had various methods at his disposal to stop the attack, but defendant did nothing. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

On October 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff

sought an order compelling defendant to produce documents responsive to plaintiff’s Request for

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 19
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

2

Production of Documents, Set 7. Plaintiff contended that despite two follow-up letters to

counsel, defendant had not responded to this request. 

On November 3, 2005, defendant filed an opposition to the motion to compel. 

Defense counsel contends that she failed to timely respond due to a calendaring error in counsel’s

office. Moreover, defendant avers that responses were provided to plaintiff on November 3,

2005. Defendant contends plaintiff’s October 31 motion should be denied as moot in light of

their responses. 

In plaintiff’s November 23, 2005 reply, plaintiff contends that defendant’s

responses are lacking and renews his request for a court order compelling defendant to provide

the documents sought in his seventh request for production of documents. (Docket No. 63.) 

Plaintiff contends further responses are required for the following requests, which this court will

address seriatim.

Request No. 2. “Please produce a schematic or diagram of CSP-SAC

Administrative Segregation Building A-6 and its accompanying exercise yard depicting exact

shapes and sizes of each section of the building, including offices and sally ports or hallways.” 

(Id.) Defendant objected on the grounds the request was over-broad and not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, but, without waiving objection,

defendant produced a diagram of the A Facility 6 Block Exercise Yard. (Pl.’s Reply at 6.) 

Defendant contended no diagram for the building existed. (Id.)

Plaintiff seeks an accurate diagram of the building and attached exercise yard,

including measurements and shapes of each structure, so he may correlate testimony with the

measurement of the scene. Plaintiff maintains he can provide a rough sketch of the building with

approximate shapes and sizes for his use at trial, but is trying to avoid having his sketch

challenged at trial when counsel produces an exact schematic or diagram. Plaintiff argues that

obtaining an accurate diagram of the building, sally port and rotunda area is essential to prove his

case.

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 19
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

3

Defendant is not required to produce documents not in his possession and/or not

obtainable with due diligence. The diagram provided by defendant should meet plaintiff’s needs

at trial, and the diagram provided by defendant is a reasonable way to avoid the obvious security

concerns. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request No. 2 of Set 7 will be denied.

Request No. 3: “Please produce the document containing and describing the

procedure or procedures mandated by policy or directives or instructions of CDC or CSP-SAC in

effect on Nov. 3, 2002 for an officer assigned to a Control/Observation position, including the

position overlooking the Administrative Segregation Building A-6 exercise yard at CSP-SAC for

responding to an incident consisting of one or two inmates assaulting a third inmate with inmate

manufactured knives.” (Id.) Defendants responded that “[t]here are no documents responsive to

the specifics of this request. However, defendant has previously produced a copy of the Post

Orders.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff contends that his request sought the policies or procedures regulating the

position of “exercise yard gunner” when faced with a potentially lethal situation. Plaintiff

maintains that an employee in this position holds a gun and supervises inmate activities on the

concrete exercise yard. Plaintiff objects that the “Post Orders” referred to by defendant describe

duties of Control Officers who are responsible for the inside of the building, and maintains other

documents must exist to govern the actions of armed guards tasked with monitoring the exercise

yards.

Plaintiff’s argument is well taken. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response

to request no. 3 will be granted. Defendant shall provide the procedure or procedures that govern

the armed guards tasked with monitoring the exercise yards, particularly those procedures or

regulations governing how these armed guards are to respond to an inmate on inmate assault. If

procedures are not specifically written for exercise yard gunner, defendant shall affirmatively

state what policies or procedures govern the position and include the procedures or regulations

that would govern an employee holding that position.

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 19
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

4

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to deem the request for

admissions, set #1, admitted based on defendant’s failure to respond. (Docket No. 62.) Plaintiff

served this first request for admissions on September 27, 2005. Pursuant to the December 15,

2004 discovery order, defendant had 45 days to respond. Here, the 45th day fell on Thursday,

November 10, 2005. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Because these responses were mailed, three days for

mailing could be added to the time calculation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e); 5(b)(2)(B), so the responses

were timely if mailed on Monday, November 14, 2005, because the third day fell on a Sunday. 

In his declaration supporting this motion, plaintiff contends he had not received a response (Pl.’s

November 23, 2005 Decl. at 1.), at least by November 18, 2005, the date he mailed his motion. 

Defendant has provided a copy of his response to plaintiff’s request for

admissions. (Deft.’s December 2, 2005 Motion, Ex. A.) The response was signed by counsel for

defendant and dated November 28, 2005, and the declaration of service by mail states it was

mailed on November 28, 2005. (Id.) 

Defendant states “plaintiff was served with the responses on the date counsel

believed the responses were due.” (Id. at 2.) Counsel for defendant states she was out ill the

month of September and only worked part-time in October. Counsel claims she could not find

plaintiff’s original requests for admissions, so, for reasons not clear to this court, counsel used

the date of October 12, 2005 to calculate the response due date. Because 45 days from that date

fell on a Saturday, counsel initially completed and served the responses the following Monday,

November 28, 2005. 

On December 2, 2005, defendant’s counsel filed a motion to supplement,

withdraw or amend the responses to the September 27, 2005 requests for admissions. (Docket

No. 65.) Defendant argues that the merits of the action would not be subserved were the court to

deem all of the requests admitted. Defendant further contends that allowing withdrawal or

amendment of the admissions would not impede plaintiff’s ability to present his evidence at trial.

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 19
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

5

The federal rules are clear that requests for admissions are admitted “unless,

within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may

allow . . ., the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the

admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter. . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

Because counsel did not serve the responses within the 45 days provided by the court’s discovery

order, the requests are deemed admitted. “Any matter under this rule is conclusively established

unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admissions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

36(b).

The court has reviewed the untimely responses posed by defendant as well as

counsel’s suggested amendments. Many of the responses were qualified and failed to meet the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Parties are required to admit or deny the request and, if

denying, “shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering

party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission,

and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny

only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the

party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the

remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or

knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party

states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the

information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient

to enable the party to admit or deny. A party who considers that a

matter of which an admission has been requested presents a

genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the

request; the party may, subject to the provisions of Rule 37(c),

deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or

deny it.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

However, defendant’s argument that the merits of the action would not be

subserved if defendant is not allowed to withdraw his admissions is well taken. Hadley v. United

States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). “[T]wo requirements must be met before an

admission may be withdrawn: (1) presentation of the merits of the action must be subserved, and

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 5 of 19
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

6

(2) the party who obtained the admission must not be prejudiced by the withdrawal.” Sonoda v.

Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001).

Were defendant not permitted to withdraw his responses here, he would be

deprived of a hearing on the merits of his defense. Because the errors related to the untimely

responses are solely attributable to the errors of counsel, defendant should not be so penalized.

Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated how he would be prejudiced by the withdrawal of these

admissions, other than to state he needs the discovery to effectively prepare his case. Plaintiff

has been inconvenienced by the delay of discovery in this action, but because this court is

extending deadlines to address this delay, plaintiff has not met his burden to show prejudice by

the withdrawal of these admissions. See Hadley 45 F.3d at 1349 (found inconvenience but not

prejudice despite the moving party's contention that if the admission had been timely it would

have been able to engage in more extensive trial preparation); see also 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776

F.2d at 869 (finding prejudice where motion to withdraw admission made in the middle of trial

when 999 had nearly rested its case and 999 had relied on the admission and had shown the

admission to the jury).

Because the merits of the action would not be subserved or promoted and less

severe sanctions are available, the court will grant defendant’s motion to withdraw the

admissions. However, defendant will be required to respond to the request for admissions anew,

complying, carefully, with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). The court will address the issue of expenses

and/or sanctions below.

4. Defendant’s Motion for Relief from November 18, 2005 Order

On December 7, 2005, defendant filed a motion for relief from the court’s

November 18, 2005 order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for

production, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Docket No. 67.) Specifically, the order granted

plaintiff’s request to produce Operational Procedure #8 and further responses to requests for

production sets 3, 4, 5 and 6. (Id.) Counsel contends the initial failure to respond to plaintiff’s

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 6 of 19
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

 Specifically counsel states she was out of the office when the motions to compel were 1

filed and she was preparing for and going to trial in Fresno. Counsel was out ill the month of

September and only worked part-time in October. Although her mail was checked in her

absence, the order was missed. In addition, the case was reassigned within the office of the

Attorney General, but no notice of reassignment was filed with the court, so plaintiff’s new

correspondence was delivered to the new attorney who later turned it over to the first counsel of

record. (Deft.’s Motion at 2.)

7

request, as well as the subsequent failure to comply with the court’s order requiring further

responses, was due to inadvertent error and oversight by counsel. 

1

Initially defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion is defective because he allegedly

failed to set forth any grounds for his position that defendant’s objections are not well taken, and

fails to address why the documents requested are material to the matters at issue.” (Deft.’s

December 7, 2005 Motion at 2.) However, appended to plaintiff’s August 5, 2005 motion to

compel was plaintiff’s brief in support of his motion in which he identified the specific requests

that he contended were still at issue as well as those he conceded to defendant’s objections. 

(Pl.’s August 5, 2005 Motion at 20-28.) Thus, defendant’s objection that plaintiff’s motion was

defective is overruled.

Defendant further contends that several of the documents sought by plaintiff are

confidential and their release would threaten the safety and security of the institution, staff and

inmates. Finally, defendant argues that some of plaintiff’s requests are so broad that defendant

cannot comply with the order to turn over the requested documents. 

On December 27, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion for

relief from the court’s November 18, 2005 order. Plaintiff asks that the court deny defendant’s

motion based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), essentially as a sanction for defendant’s failure to respond

to multiple requests for discovery, multiple motions to compel discovery and a court order

directing counsel to respond to discovery. Subsequently, plaintiff filed requests for the entry of

default as a sanction for defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery requests and the court’s

order, and also filed a motion for contempt based on the same failures to act. 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 7 of 19
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 None of the other provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) apply to the circumstances at bar. 2

8

Federal Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant

part that a party may be relieved from a final judgment or order on a showing of “mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions under Fed. R. 2

Civ. P. 60(b)(1) must be made no later than one year after entry of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Here, the order was entered November 18, 2005; thus, the motion was timely brought. 

While the court is not unsympathetic to counsel’s claim of illness for the month of

September, 2005, the delay in responding to plaintiff’s diligent efforts to obtain discovery in this

action is remarkable. Plaintiff wrote counsel each time responses were late before resorting to

filing a motion to compel. Then, once plaintiff sought court assistance and an order issued,

defendant ignored the court order as well. This delay has impacted both plaintiff and the court.

That said, however, the court is disinclined to penalize defendant for the failings

of counsel, particularly where the result may impact the safety and security of the institution, its

staff and inmates. Accordingly, the court will grant defendant’s motion for relief from the

November 18, 2005 order. The court will deem the responses to the requests for production of

documents timely made. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be addressed in a separate category

below. The court now turns to the motions underlying the November 18, 2005 order.

In his August 1, 2005 motion to compel discovery, plaintiff sought production of

Operational Procedure #8. Defendant objected, stating the report is confidential. Defendant

states this document contains tactical information on the use of force and would inform inmates

how to avoid the procedures used to stop inmate disturbances. (Young Decl. at 1.) 

Defendant, however, has cited the operational procedures as his defense and

therefore should be required to produce documentary evidence in support thereof. Because

defendant contends Operational Procedure #8 is confidential for the safety and security of the

institution, defendant will be ordered to submit the document to the court for review in camera.

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 8 of 19
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

 These interrogatories asked defendant to recount the number of incidents occurring on 3

the ad-seg exercise yards at CSP-Sacramento for 2002 for four different variations of inmate on

inmate assaults (question #2) and to state the number of times defendant witnessed and

performed his duties as an observation/control officer of an ad-seg exercise yard at CSPSacramento for 2002 for those types of assaults listed in #2 (question #3).

9

In his August 8, 2005 motion to compel discovery, plaintiff sought an order

requiring defendant to provide further documents requested in plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth and

sixth sets of requests for production of documents. The court will address the specific requests

seriatim.

Request for Production, Set Three: 

Request No. 1: “If the procedures inquired about in “Interrogatories Set 2"

question #1 propounded by Plaintiff are set forth in any directive, manuel [sic] or other

document, produce the document.” Response: “Documents responsive to this request,

specifically, a copy of the post orders for ASU/EPO Control Booth Officer, have been attached as

Exhibit A.

Plaintiff contends that the post orders for control booth officer are not applicable

to the position defendant held at the time plaintiff was stabbed. However, it appears these are the

procedures plaintiff later requested in Set 7, Request 3 above. In light of the order granting

plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to further respond to request 3 of plaintiff’s 7th set of

requests for production, plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to request no. 1 will be

denied.

Request No. 2: “If the information inquired about in “Interrogatories Set

2" questions #2 and #3 propounded by Plaintiff are set forth in any statistical analysis or 3

statistical compilation report by the California Department of Corrections, California State Prison

at Sacramento, or one of their agents, please produce a copy of the documents containing that

analysis and/or compilation report.” Response: “Defendant objects to this request on the 

grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.”

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 9 of 19
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

10

Plaintiff states he made this request to “acquire facts on the violent nature of the

inmate assigned to ASU exercise yards at CSP-Sac during the year 2002. Plaintiff claims this

information would be used to provide a factual basis for the pervasive risk of harm plaintiff faced

while assigned to the ASU building exercise yard and to prove deliberate indifference. 

Defendant argues these documents have no bearing on this case and object to

plaintiff’s request that the document contain a description of each violent act, including the part

of the institution in which the act took place.

Defendant is not required to create a document responsive to a document

production request. If defendant does not have statistical analysis or compilation reports setting

forth those inmate on inmate assaults that occurred in 2002 at CSP-Sacramento, he must say so

in a verified response. However, if defendant has statistical data that demonstrates the number of

inmate on inmate assaults that have taken place on the yard at issue here, defendant shall produce

them. Obviously, defendant is not required to produce documents for the entire institution. 

Request No. 3: “Please Produce any and all grievances, complaints, or

other documents received by Mark Churray, defendant, or his agents at California State Prison at

Sacramento concerning mistreatment of inmates by defendant Mark Churray, and any

memoranda, investigative files or other documents created in response to such documents.”

Response: “Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is vague as to time, overly broad,

and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiff states he sought this information to prove defendant’s deliberate

indifference to plaintiff’s health and welfare during the assault. Plaintiff states a time factor is

not an issue because “the defendant’s integrity does not somehow change on some magical date,

but it is established by documentation over a period of time.” (Pl.’s August 8, 2005 Motion at

23.) 

In the opposition, defendant recounts the initial objections but adds that inmate

grievances are not filed by the name of the correctional officer involved, but are kept in the 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 10 of 19
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 In defendant’s answers to plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories, defendant recalled 4

there were at least four incidents of inmate on inmate assaults on the exercise yard. Defendant

stated he could not recall the precise number or specifics of the incidents. 

11

inmates’ files; thus, defendant cannot reasonably produce the requested documents.

Defendant’s objections are well taken. No further production will be ordered.4

Request for Production, Set Four: 

Request No. 1: “Plaintiff filed a CDC 602 inmate appeal form Log #SACS-03-00680, see exhibit B of the Complaint. An inquiry was made, see accompanying document,

by Investigative Services Unit (ISU) Lieutenant D. Leiber into my allegations of staff misconduct

lodged in the CDC 602 inmate appeal form. Please produce all reports and associated documents

made by ISU Lieutenant D. Leiber and his agents, employees, co-workers concerning the

investigation of my allegations, including any and all documents of interviews made by ISU staff

or their agents of inmates and staff of California State Prison-Sacramento.” Response: 

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the document requested has been deemed

confidential for the safety and security of the institution. Without waiving objection, a copy of

the memorandum authorized by D. Leiber finding that plaintiff’s allegations could not be

sustained is attached as Exhibit A.”

In their motion, defendant state that the investigative report authored by D. Leiber

contains statements made by an inmate during the course of the investigation. Defendant alleges

the inmate believed this information would remain confidential and divulging this information in

unredacted form would endanger the safety of that inmate. Defendant argues the Leiber report

should not be produced to plaintiff in unredacted form. 

Plaintiff argues that the report is relevant and that the inmate named in the report

may well be a witness critical to plaintiff’s case. 

The Leiber report is relevant, and should be produced. However, based on

defendant’s concerns for the named inmate, the court will require defendant to submit the report

to the court for review in camera. Defendant shall also provide a copy of the Leiber report

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 11 of 19
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

12

marking proposed redactions.

Request for Production, Set Five: 

Request No. 1: “Please produce all documents listed in your response to

Interrogatory Set 3 question 1a propounded by plaintiff, including all documents describing the

disciplinary, criminal, and/or behavioral history of all inmates assigned to the 6/4 Administrative

Segregation building A-6 exercise yard on Nov. 3, 2002.” Response: Defendant objects to this

request on the ground that the documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the ground that

the documents requested contain information that has been deemed confidential for the safety

and security of the institution, and that is privileged under state law. Moreover, defendant did

not respond to Interrogatory, Set 3, as plaintiff has propounded more interrogatories than allowed

under Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Plaintiff argues this information is necessary to prove that the inmates on the ASU

building A-6 exercise yard on November 3, 2002 were exceedingly violent in nature. Plaintiff

contends this evidence will help him demonstrate that a pervasive risk of harm existed to the

plaintiff by being in the proximity of such violent inmates, as discussed in Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Plaintiff argues the release of this information should not be an

institutional safety or security concern as plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at CSP-Sacramento. 

In his opposition, defendant argues this information has no bearing on plaintiff’s case. Balancing

the security concerns against the probative value of plaintiff’s request, plaintiff’s motion to

compel production will be denied.

Request for Production, Set Six: 

Request No. 1: “Please provide all sections of the Department Operations

Manuel that list or outline your dutys [sic] and responsibilities for “Disturbance Control” listed in

DOM 55010, including all related and discrete subsections, and of your use of less than lethal

weapons listed in DOM 55050, including all related and discrete subsections, especially those 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 12 of 19
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

13

sections that describe the nature of and use of the 37mm projectile or gas gun and the Hydra

Force Water Restraint System.” Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that

it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further

objects to this request on the grounds that the sections of the DOM requested have been deemed

confidential for the safety and security of the institution. Without waiving objection, plaintiff has

already been provided with copies of the Post Orders for ASU/EOP Control Booth Officer.”

Plaintiff argues he is trying to establish defendant’s responsibilities as a

control/observation officer for “Disturbance Control.” Because plaintiff based his claim on

defendant’s actions and non-actions during a disturbance, plaintiff argues these documents are

relevant. Plaintiff states he is required to prove the defendant had the means to intervene, abate

or quell the incident; thus, these documents would help plaintiff demonstrate defendant’s

knowledge, use and possession of weapons in relation to his duties and responsibilities as a

control/observation officer.

Defendant will be required to respond to this request without further objection. 

Request No. 5: “Please provide documents used and required by California

Department of Corrections and California State Prison - Sacramento to document and record

your proficiency in the following weapons for the year of 2002: 1. Mini-14 rifle; 2. 37mm

projectile or gas gun; 3. Hydra Force Water Restraint System.” Response: “Defendant objects to

this request on the grounds that it is vague as to time, overly broad and not reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiff argues he needs this information to prove defendant had the means to

intervene, abate or quell the incident at issue here. Plaintiff contends that requiring defendant to 

produce evidence of his proficiency in handling these weapons for the year 2002 is relevant to

whether defendant had the ability to intervene.

Defendant will be required to respond to this request without further objection.

Request No. 6: “Please provide documents that contain a list of lethal and 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 13 of 19
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

14

non-lethal weapons provided to a control/observation officer working for CSP-Sacramento on

Nov. 3, 2002, and a control/observation officer includes your assignment on Nov. 3, 2002 to the

Administrative Segregation Building A-6 exercise yard control/observation window.” Response: 

“Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that

the information requested has been deemed confidential for the safety and security of the

institution.”

Plaintiff argues he needs this information to prove defendant had the means to

intervene, abate or quell the incident at issue here. 

Defendant will be required to respond to this request without further objection.

5. Plaintiff’s Multiple Requests for Imposition of Sanctions

On December 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default based on

defendant’s failure to provide the documents as ordered by the court on November 17, 2005. 

(Docket No. 69.) On January 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default (docket no. 71)

based on defendant’s failure to answer interrogatories as ordered by the court on November 29,

2005. On January 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an order of contempt based on defendant’s

failure to cooperate in discovery and failure to comply with the court’s November 29, 2005 order

granting plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to respond to certain interrogatories. On April

10, 2006, plaintiff renewed his motion for default judgment based on defendants’ failure to

respond to discovery. 

On January 9, 2006, defendant filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant

claims his responses were delayed first by his efforts to determine whether any of the inmates

plaintiff sought information about were known enemies of plaintiff. Defendant also noted he had

requested reconsideration of the court’s order in his December 7, 2005 motion. Finally,

defendant was provided a response to the request concerning plaintiff’s enemies and defendant

has served supplemental responses on plaintiff. Defendant concedes his response was untimely 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 14 of 19
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

15

but contends that because many of the named inmates are or were members of various White

Supremacist prison gangs and this case involves a gang-related assault, it was imperative to

verify plaintiff’s known enemies prior to releasing this information to plaintiff.

While counsel for defendant offers a viable explanation for some of the delay in

providing this information to plaintiff, defendant has again chosen a passive way of dealing with

a problem. Court deadlines are set for a reason and when court orders issue, counsel is expected

to act in a timely fashion, or seek leave of court if unable to do so. Upon receiving the discovery

requests, counsel did not promptly object or move for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c), and, failing to do so, was under a duty to respond. Here, counsel repeatedly failed to

respond, either to the opposing party or to the court. Such behavior is unacceptable and will no

longer be tolerated in this case. Had counsel simply requested an extension of time to respond,

the court could have addressed counsel’s situation and this case might have proceeded in a more

orderly fashion.

This court is not willing to impose the harsh sanctions of default or contempt at

this juncture. It appears new counsel has taken over this case, effective February 27, 2006, and

the court will presume no further delays will occur based on counsel’s failure to respond. The

court is reluctantly extending the discovery and dispositive motions filing deadlines for the

second time. Thus, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the delay he sustained at the hands of

opposing counsel.

However, based on all of the failures to act recited above, the imposition of

sanctions is required. The district court has discretion to order defendant or his attorney to pay a

substantial monetary fine and/or the plaintiff’s increased costs and expenses. Hadley, 45 F.3d at

1350. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has suffered no increased attorney’s fees or

filing fees for the many motions he was required to file in an effort to obtain discovery herein. 

He did incur additional photocopy expenses, however. Accordingly, this court finds it

appropriate to order Kelli M. Hammond, Deputy Attorney General, to personally pay the sum of 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 15 of 19
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

 Pretrial and trial dates were vacated in the court’s August 31, 2005 order and will be 5

reset, if appropriate, following resolution of dispositive motions.

16

$200.00 to plaintiff as sanctions for her repeated failures to comply with discovery requests and

discovery orders issued in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Ms. Hammond shall not tax this cost

to her client. In addition, the office of the Attorney General shall pay $200.00 to the court’s

nonappropriated fund for its failure to provide adequate supervision. 

7. Plaintiff’s Request to Extend the Discovery Deadline

On December 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline

from January 1, 2006 to April 1, 2006. (Docket No. 68.) On March 27, 2006, plaintiff renewed

this request. As noted above, plaintiff has had difficulty obtaining discovery from defendant. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s requests will be granted. However, because the court is

allowing plaintiff to obtain written depositions from other inmates, pursuant to an order issued

herewith, a longer discovery period will be required. Thus, the discovery deadline will be

extended to October 1, 2006. 

8. Defendant’s Request to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline

On February 27, 2006, defendant filed a timely request to extend the March 1,

2006 deadline for filing dispositive motions. Normally, the court would not extend this deadline

unless the request were accompanied by a proposed motion for summary judgment, which was

filed separately, on March 14, 2006. However, because the discovery period has been extended

by necessity, the court has no alternative but to also extend the dispositive motion deadline. 

Counsel is cautioned to refrain from re-filing a dispositive motion until discovery is complete. 

Accordingly, defendant’s request to extend the dispositive motion deadline will be granted.5

Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than January 1, 2007.

9. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

On March 14, 2006, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. However,

because plaintiff has been unable to obtain the discovery he may need to file an opposition to the

motion, and the discovery deadline and the dispositive motions deadline are being extended to

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 16 of 19
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

17

allow plaintiff to complete discovery, defendant’s motion is premature. Defendant’s motion will

be denied without prejudice to its renewal after the discovery deadline, at which time defendant

may refile the same motion or modify it.

In light of this ruling, plaintiff’s March 27, 2006 request for an order staying

defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice.

10. Pretrial and Trial Dates

On April 12, 2006, the district court reset this matter for jury trial on November 8,

2006. In light of the above, the November 8, 2006 jury trial date will be vacated. Dates for filing

pretrial statements and the pretrial conference and jury trial dates will be reset at an appropriate

time after the dispositive motion deadline. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 motion to compel production of documents

(docket no. 59) is partially granted. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendant

shall further respond to Request No. 3 of Set 7. 

2. In all other respects, plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 motion to compel production

of documents is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2005 motion to deem requests for admissions

admitted (docket no. 62) is granted.

4. Defendant’s December 2, 2005 motion to withdraw the admissions (docket no.

65) is granted; within thirty days from the date of this order, defendant shall respond to Request

for Admissions No. 1 dated September 27, 2005.

5. Defendant’s December 7, 2005, motion for relief from the court’s November

18, 2005 order (docket no. 67) is granted. 

6. Plaintiff’s August 1, 2005 and August 8, 2005 motions to compel are partially

granted:

A. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendant shall submit a 

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 17 of 19
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

18

copy of Operational Procedure #8, an unredacted copy of the investigative report authored by D.

Leiber, and a copy of the Leiber report with proposed redactions to the chambers of the

undersigned for review in camera. 

B. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s request for production, set six,

request nos. 1, 5 and 6, without further objection.

C. The remainder of plaintiff’s August 1, 2005 and August 8, 2005

motions to compel are denied (docket nos. 47, 51). 

7. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2005 request for entry of default (docket no. 69) is

denied. 

8. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2005 and March 27, 2006 requests to extend the

discovery deadline (docket nos. 68, 86) are granted in part; the discovery deadline is extended

from January 1, 2006 to October 1, 2006.

9. Plaintiff’s January 3, 2006 request for entry of default (docket no. 71) is

denied. 

10. Plaintiff’s January 3, 2006 motion for an order of contempt (docket no. 72) is

denied.

11. Defendant’s February 27, 2006 motion (docket no. 78) is granted. The

dispositive motion deadline is extended to January 1, 2007.

12. Defendant’s March 14, 2006 motion for summary judgment (docket no. 82) is

denied without prejudice.

13. Plaintiff’s March 27, 2006 request (docket no. 85) is denied without

prejudice.

14. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are partially granted. Kelli M. Hammond,

Deputy Attorney General, shall personally pay the sum of $200.00 to plaintiff as sanctions for her

repeated failures to comply with discovery requests and discovery orders issued in this action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Ms. Hammond shall not tax this cost to her client. In addition, the office of

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 18 of 19
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

19

the Attorney General shall pay $200.00 to the court’s nonappropriated fund for its failure to

provide adequate supervision. 

15. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2006 motion for default (docket no. 87) is denied.

16. The jury trial date set for November 8, 2006 before the Honorable Morrison

C. England, Jr. is vacated.

DATED: April 28, 2006.

/001;dickey.mtc

Case 2:03-cv-02215-ALA Document 91 Filed 05/02/06 Page 19 of 19