Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01415/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01415-9/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

ROBERT TREVINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. BURKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01415-DJC-JDP (PC)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL IN PART

ECF No. 55

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT BE DENIED

ECF Nos. 52 & 57

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Pending are plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 55, and two motions to amend the 

complaint, ECF Nos. 52 & 57. For the reasons stated below, I will grant the motion to compel in 

part and recommend that the motions to amend be denied. 

I. Motion to Compel

In a disorganized and difficult-to-understand motion, plaintiff appears to attack the sufficiency of 

several discovery responses that defendants have provided to his interrogatories, requests for 

production of documents, and requests for admission. ECF No. 55. Defendants have filed an 

opposition, ECF No. 56, and plaintiff has declined to a file a reply. This motion will be granted 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 8
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

in part.

Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[O]bjections should be plain 

enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the interrogatories are 

alleged to be objectionable.”). A responding party typically is not required to conduct extensive 

research to answer an interrogatory, but reasonable efforts must be undertaken. L.H. v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042-LKK-GGH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73752, 2007 WL 2781132, 

*2 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the 

information sought is later obtained or if the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(e)(1)(A).

As an initial matter, defendants correctly note that parties are encouraged to meet and 

confer as to their discovery disputes before filing a motion to compel. Plaintiff has failed to do 

so, and, while I will not deny his motion on that basis, he is encouraged to confer before filing 

any future motions. There are seven discovery requests at issue in the motion to compel: three 

interrogatories, two requests for production, and two requests for admission. I consider each in 

turn.

A. Interrogatories

The first interrogatory (number four in the set) at issue asks defendant Jimenez-Garcia:

Is there a prison-yard-camera posted on the roof of 1-block, 

approximately ten (10) yards from the prison law library?

Defendant Jimenez-Garcia responded:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that: (1) it is 

vague and ambiguous as to the undefined term “prison-yardcamera” and “ten (10) yards from the law library,” causing 

Defendant to speculate as to meaning; (2) it is not proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 

stake; (3) it is impermissibly compound; and (4) it is vague and 

overly broad as to the applicable time period because no time 

period is identified.

Subject to, and without waiving these objections, and further 

interpreting this interrogatory to refer to the location of a 

surveillance camera on the roof of Housing Unit 1, on Facility D at 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 8
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 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) 

during the times relevant to the First Amended Complaint, 

Defendant responds as follows:

I do not know.

ECF No. 55 at 14-15; ECF No. 56 at 5. This response is adequate. Jimenez-Garcia states that he 

does not know, and I cannot compel him to divulge information he does not have. 

The second interrogatory (number thirteen in the set) asks defendant Jimenez-Garcia:

According to the authority cited under CCR Title 15 § 3162(d) the 

Warden and the D-Yard Correctional Captain have the over-all 

responsibility to delegate the lower level prison employees to 

provide adequate duplicating services, especially when they are 

needed to meet their legal dead-lines, is this correct?

Defendant Jimenez-Garcia responded:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that: (1) it is 

impermissibly compound; (2) it is vague and ambiguous in its 

entirety, causing Defendant to speculate as to meaning; (3) it is not 

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

the issues at stake; (4) it is an incomplete hypothetical; and (5) it 

seeks a response to an incomplete hypothetical.

Based on these objections Defendant cannot respond to this 

interrogatory as currently phrased.

ECF No. 55 at 16; ECF No. 56 at 5-6. Crucially, plaintiff’s motion indicates that he seeks to 

compel defendants to provide only the names of the warden and correctional captain mentioned in 

the interrogatory. ECF No. 55 at 16 (written on the margin of the page is “compel names”). The 

interrogatory did not ask after the identity of these individuals, and I decline to compel 

information that was not put at issue in the first instance. 

The third interrogatory at issue (number fifteen in the set) asks defendant Jimenez-Garcia:

According to item #19[] above produce the name of the Warden of 

CSAT-F (From 11/2020); the name of the D-facility Captain of 

CSAT-F (from 11/2020); the names of the CCI and CCII Appeals 

Coordinators, who returned the “Acknowledgment form dated 12-

9-2020 (Exhibit V) Log No. 64533. And name the supervising law 

librarian of CSAT-F (from 11/2020).

Defendant Jimenez-Garcia responded:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that: (1) it is 

impermissibly compound; (2) it is not proportional to the needs of 

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake; (3) it is 

vague and ambiguous as to the term “According to item #19 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 8
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

above,” causing Defendant to speculate as to its meaning; (4) it 

seeks information regarding individuals previously dismissed from 

this lawsuit; and (5) the information sought is equally available to 

Plaintiff.

Based on these objections, Defendant will not provide a response.

ECF No. 55 at 17; ECF No. 56 at 6. I agree with defendants that the wording “according to item 

According to item #19” is vague and ambiguous. The interrogatory as a whole is compound and, 

in referencing various external documents, difficult to understand. Accordingly, I find that it 

would be more appropriate to rephrase and resubmit this interrogatory than to require defendants 

to guess at its meaning. 

B. Requests for Production

The first request for production at issue (number nine in the set) seeks:

State the duties of the Facility Captain in relation to CCR Title 15 

§ 3162(d), and the overall operations of D-Yard, especifically 

assuring that prisoners are provided the necessary duplicating 

services. If those duties are set forth in any other job description 

such as O.P. (Operational Procedures) or DOM (Department 

Operations Manual) policies, procedures, produce the document, 

and produce the name of the Facility Captain (D-Yard) at California 

Substante Abuse, Treatment Facility (CSAT-F) during the alleged 

deprivation of Nov/2020.

Defendants responded:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that: (1) it is 

impermissibly compound; (2) it lacks foundation because it 

assumes facts which are in dispute and for which there is no 

supporting evidence; (3) it is not proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake; (4) it is 

argumentative; and (5) it is an improper request for production, 

insofar as it seeks information and not a specific document.

Based on these objections, Defendants cannot respond to this 

request as currently phrased.

ECF No. 55 at 12; ECF No. 56 at 7. As defendants point out in their opposition, the facility 

captain is not a defendant in this case, and plaintiff has not explained why either his or her 

identity or responsibilities is relevant. However, the scope of discovery is broad, and I cannot say 

that the information requested in this interrogatory could not lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. See Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 8
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

(“Relevant information for purposes of discovery is information reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And none of 

defendants’ other, boiler objections are convincing. The request is poorly worded, but 

comprehensible. Defendants shall supplement their responses to answer this request for 

production. 

The second request for production (number ten in the set) seeks:

State the procedure in effect during November 20-20, at CSAT-F 

for responding to investigating and deciding inmate grievances. 

Specifically in terms of providing adequate access to duplicating 

services per (CCR Title § 3162(d)[)], including the supervisor 

review of those who are not provided such request and then is 

documented in a 128B, as directed under CCR Title § 3162(d). 

Therefore, produce the names of CCI (Appeals Coordinator), CCII 

(Supervising Appeals Coordinator) and Supervising Law Librarian. 

If those procedures are set forth in any directive, manual or other 

document, produce the document.

Defendants responded:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that: (1) it is 

impermissibly compound; (2) it lacks foundation because it 

assumes facts which are in dispute and for which there is no 

supporting evidence; (3) it is not proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake; (4) it is 

argumentative; (5) it is unintelligible as drafted; and (6) it is an 

improper request for production, insofar as it seeks information and 

not a specific document.

Based on these objections, Defendants cannot respond to this 

request as currently phrased.

ECF No. 55 at 12-13; ECF No. 56 at 8. I agree with defendants’ contention that this request is 

difficult to understand and appears to seek information that lacks relevance. I do not understand 

what “including the supervisor review of those who are not provided such request and then is 

documented in a 128B, as directed under CCR Title § 3162(d)” means or what documents it 

seeks. Additionally, plaintiff has not explained why information related to the prison grievance 

procedure, to which no federal rights attach, is relevant. I decline to order defendants to 

supplement their response. 

C. Requests for Admission

Plaintiff has filed two requests for admission (numbers three and twenty in the set), the

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 5 of 8
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

first seeking to have defendants admit that the yard captain and warden each had overall 

responsibility for ensuring that defendant Burke, the law librarian, would provide adequate 

service. ECF No. 56 at 8. Defendants offer a range of boiler objections, but ultimately argue that 

they should not be required to respond because this request is plaintiff’s “hook” for drawing these 

two individuals into his lawsuit. Id. at 9. That may be but, again, the scope of discovery is broad,

and the question of what individuals had supervisory authority of defendant Burke is not outside 

the bounds of relevance. Defendants shall supplement their responses to admit or deny this 

request for admission.

The second request for admission seeks the names of two appeals coordinators, id. at 9, 

and, as such, is inappropriate. A request for admission must be capable of being answered with a 

simple admission or denial; they are not devices for discovering specific information. See Misco, 

Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 784 F.2d 198, 205 (6th Cir. 1986) (“Requests for admissions are 

not a general discovery device.”). 

D. Conclusion

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be granted in part. Defendants shall 

supplement their response to request for production number nine and request for admission 

number three. The motion is denied in all other respects.

II. Motions to Amend

Plaintiff has filed two motions to amend, ECF Nos. 52 & 57, the latter accompanied by an 

amended complaint, ECF No. 59. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to consider the first motion 

insofar as it has been superseded by the second. After review of the proposed amended 

complaint, I find that leave to amend should be denied because plaintiff’s proposed complaint 

could not proceed past screening and is, therefore, futile. See Moore v. Kayport Package Exp, 

Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as 

amended, is subject to dismissal.”). 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint runs sixty-two pages in length, excluding exhibits (with which 

it runs one hundred thirty pages) is not a short and plain statement of a claims as contemplated by 

Rule 8. The complaint begins with misconduct by an attorney, Z. Desta, who allegedly 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 6 of 8
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

participated in a conspiracy to frustrate plaintiff’s litigation in a separate case. ECF No. 59 at 17-

18. He alleges that Desta falsified documents and made false statements to the court, but I can 

glean no specifics about the alleged misconduct or how, if at all, it bears on the claims at issue in 

this case. Id. at 22. Plaintiff appears to suggest that Desta framed him for crimes he did not 

conduct, an allegation that sounds in habeas rather than section 1983. Id. The only discernable 

link between Desta’s alleged misconduct and the claims at issue is a thinly pled conspiracy 

between the various defendants. Id. at 22-24. 

Elsewhere in the lengthy, meandering complaint, plaintiff alleges that correctional officers 

worked to frame him, id. at 26; an appeals coordinator interfered with his access to the courts by 

misrepresenting the date on which the relevant office received a grievance, id. at 30; and 

plaintiff’s own attorney, A. Colella, either purposefully or negligently mishandled his case, id. at 

34-35. These are not the only allegations raised, but rather a sample of the jumbled and confusing 

nature of the new case plaintiff seeks to bring. This complaint cannot be reasonably parsed, let 

alone appropriately served on any defendant. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the importance 

of plain and concise pleading. See Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, 

discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, 

and society loses confidence in the court's ability to administer justice.”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (quoting Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996)). 

Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied without prejudice. 

Based on the foregoing it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 

55, is GRANTED in part. Defendants are directed to supplement their responses to request for 

production number nine and request for admission number three. The motion is denied in all 

other respects.

Further it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions to amend, ECF Nos. 52 & 57, be 

DENIED without prejudice for the reasons stated above.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01415-DC-JDP Document 60 Filed 01/17/24 Page 8 of 8