Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Docs. 48 and 49)

I. Background

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 

and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.

Pursuant to the scheduling order filed on April 23, 2013, the deadline for the completion of 

all discovery between Plaintiff and Defendants Gomez and Stark was December 23, 2013.1 On 

December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a timely motion to compel and a motion for sanctions. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37. Defendants Gomez and Stark filed oppositions on January 8, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a 

reply on January 21, 2014. The motions have been submitted upon the record without oral 

argument and for the reasons which follow, they are denied. Local Rule 230(l). 

 

1 Defendant Garcia did not file an answer until December 23, 2013, and he is subject to a separate scheduling order. 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 61 Filed 03/24/14 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

2

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling staff at Kern Valley State Prison to produce the Facility 

B, Third Watch, Post Order for December 14, 2010, pertaining to sergeants. However, Plaintiff 

neither served a subpoena for the production of the document on Kern Valley State Prison, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45, nor served Defendants with a request for the production of the document, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34. As a result, there exists no basis for an order compelling production of the document, and 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. 

B. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was served on December 10, 2013, before Plaintiff 

received the Court’s order of December 17, 2013, denying his previous motion to compel and for 

sanctions.

As set forth in the order of December 17, 2013, Plaintiff may not seek sanctions based on 

his mere disagreement with Defendants’ discovery responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; Roadway 

Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767, 100 S.Ct. 2455 (1980); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 

1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001). The parties disagree whether Defendant Garcia worked on December 

14, 2010. Defendant’s position is that he did not work on that date and he provided a document 

supporting his position. Plaintiff’s position is that Defendant worked on that date and the 

document produced is fraudulent. This factual dispute provides no basis for the imposition 

sanctions against Defendant, however. 

Plaintiff has not produced any evidence in support of his bare assertion that the document 

was falsified and/or that Defendant is being untruthful. See Prof’l Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. 

Sino American Tech. Exch. Council, Inc., 727 F.2d 1470, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1984) (entry of default 

appropriate sanction where court found that defendants willfully, deliberately, and intentionally 

produced false documents). Plaintiff’s opinion or belief is not evidence and although he is not 

required to agree with Defendant, he is required to accept the response, given the circumstances.

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 61 Filed 03/24/14 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

3

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel and for sanctions, filed on December 

23, 2013, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 61 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 3