Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386-17/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

GREGORY MCCLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL 

INTERROGATORIES ON DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 112)

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was initiated in March 2010, and 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Lozano, Wood, and 

Perkins, all of whom have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 23, 71, & 73.) 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 6, 2015 motion to propound additional 

interrogatories on Defendants. (ECF No. 112.) Defendants Wood and Perkins filed an 

opposition on August 13, 2015 (ECF No. 115), and Defendant Lozano filed an opposition 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 125 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

on August 28, 2015. (ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff did not file a reply.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) limits to 25 the number of interrogatories one party may 

serve on another. An interrogatory need not be answered, but merely served and 

properly objected to, in order to count against the numerical limit. Walker v. 

Condominium Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 586-587 (C.D. Cal. 1999). If a party 

wishes to serve additional interrogatories, he or she must obtain leave from the Court to 

do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Although a pro se litigant need not make a 

“particularized showing” that he is entitled to propound additional interrogatories, see

McNeil v. Hayes, No. 1:10-cv-01746, 2014 WL 1125014, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014), 

he must nonetheless demonstrate good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Cantu v. 

Garcia, 2013 WL101667, No. 1:09cv00177, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013); Eichler v. 

Tilton, No. CIV S-06-2894, 2010 WL 457334, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010). An 

incarcerated party’s highly limited ability to conduct a deposition in prison may contribute 

to a finding of good cause to file additional interrogatories. See McNeil, 2014 WL 

1125014, at *2.

II. ANALYSIS

In support of his request to serve additional interrogatories, Plaintiff claims he

misunderstood Rule 33, believing he was allowed to serve twenty-five interrogatories per 

set, not in toto. He also argues that he should be entitled to additional interrogatories 

because of his limited financial means to depose defendants and that the Court treat his 

request with leniency because of his pro se status.

Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. Defendants’ oppositions indicate that Plaintiff 

served well over 25 interrogatories in many of his sets, and that the excess 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 125 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

interrogatories were properly objected to for violating Rule 33(a)(1), belying Plaintiff’s 

claimed misunderstanding of the 25-interrogatory limit. See ECF No. 121-2 (34 

interrogatories in second set served on Defendant Lozano); ECF No. 115-1, at 47-54 (61 

interrogatories in second set served on Defendant Perkins); ECF No. 115-1, at 18-25 (61 

interrogatories in second set served on Defendant Woods). Thus, Plaintiff has already 

served many more interrogatories than Rule 33 permits without having sought the 

Court’s leave to do so. 

In addition, Plaintiff has been paroled, so his ability to conduct depositions is no 

longer restricted. (ECF No. 120.) 

Plaintiff’s pro se status, moreover, is not a free pass for discovery rules to be 

relaxed in his favor, especially when he has shown considerable reluctance in providing

discovery to Defendants, who have now filed not one, but two, motions to compel. See

ECF Nos. 89, 106, & 123; see also In re Linder, 215 B.R. 826, 831 (B.A.P. 6th 

Cir.1998)(citations omitted)(“while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when 

dealing with sophisticated legal issues, ... there is no cause for extending this margin to 

straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a 

lawyer.”); Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012).

Finally, Plaintiff has not established good cause for serving 25 additional 

interrogatories. He says, vaguely, that his proposed interrogatories will “clarify a few 

factual matters the defendants are refusing to answer,” but does not specify what these 

factual matters are, why he did not ask about them in his first 25 interrogatories, or why 

he could not seek this information through other discovery tools. See Eichler, 2010 WL 

457334, at *1.

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 125 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve 

additional interrogatories. (ECF No. 112.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 125 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 4