Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272-19/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

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

DENNIS L. HAMILTON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN HART, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO 

CLARIFY DISCOVERY ORDER AND 

AMENDING ORDER AFTER HEARING 

RE: DISCOVERY ISSUES

(ECF No. 97)

Plaintiff Dennis Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2016, the Court 

issued an order regarding various discovery issues that the parties raised at a scheduling 

conference. (ECF No. 95.) Among other things, the Court narrowed the scope of two of 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests and instructed Defendants to respond to the narrowed requests. 

On November 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request to clarify the discovery order, asking for two 

changes to the discovery ordered by the Court. 

Specifically, Plaintiff asks that the order instructing Defendants to identify which 

individuals escorted him from administrative segregation to reflect that he was moved from 

building B1-114 to building B2-115, rather than buildings B114 and D2115, as the order 

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 98 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

currently instructs. In addition, the Court previously instructed Defendant Bogle to respond to 

an interrogatory asking “In your medical training, is it appropriate to decontaminate an inmate 

who has been pepper sprayed without a shower?” Plaintiff asks that the interrogatory reflect 

Defendant Bogle’s medical training before the date of the incident in question.

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. Defendants shall provide the requested information to 

Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this Order. If Defendants have already served discovery 

responses on Plaintiff pursuant to the Order After Hearing re: Discovery Issues (ECF No. 95), 

they may supplement their responses to reflect the clarified requests within 30 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 98 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2