Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-26/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

JEFF S. HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06529-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL,

FOR SANCTIONS, AND TO CORRESPOND

WITH INMATE WITNESSES

(Doc. 145.)

I. BACKGROUND

 Jeff Harnden (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is scheduled for jury trial

on December 15, 2008. 

On March 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a document which he entitled "Request inmate

correspondence Sanctions Discovery Denial 37A(2) FRCP $10,000 Request." (Doc. 145.) The

document consists of 2 pages in plaintiff's handwriting, with 2 exhibits attached. As in many of

the previous documents submitted to the court by plaintiff, it is very difficult to follow and

understand. However, based on plaintiff statements in the narrative, "This will be the first

Sanctions Discovery Motion;" "I requested CDC 1074 Forms to write inmate wittnesses (sic);"

and "If the Court will make a Ruling Demanding Discovery, I would appreciate it;" the court

concludes that plaintiff intends to bring a motion to compel discovery, for sanctions, and for the

court to enable him to correspond with his inmate witnesses. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 

The court's Discovery and Scheduling Order issued March 7, 2006, provided a deadline

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 150 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 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

2

of November 8, 2006, for all discovery, including motions to compel. Plaintiff filed the instant

motion to compel and for discovery sanctions on March 21, 2008, well after the deadline for the

submission of such motions. Moreover, plaintiff previously brought similar motions to compel

and for sanctions on January 30, 2007, which were also denied as untimely. Accordingly, the

motions are untimely and shall be denied.

III. MOTION TO CORRESPOND WITH INMATE WITNESSES

Plaintiff states that he "requested CDC 1074 Forms to write inmate wittnesses (sic)," and

the requests were denied. Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit A a Request for Correspondence Approval

showing his request and denial of the request (on Form CDC 1074). On the form, plaintiff

requests approval to correspond with Charles Manson "to cause Charly (sic) to remember me

before going to the Juggler with Deposition Requests." The request was denied by prison

officials for lack of documentation verifying the need to correspond. 

As for plaintiff's need for correspondence due to his intention to request a deposition or

obtain a declaration of Charles Manson, such requests would be untimely due to the expiration of

the discovery deadline in this action, as noted above. Therefore, the court does not find good

cause to enable plaintiff to correspond with Charles Manson. Plaintiff has not submitted

evidence of any other request for correspondence made. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for

correspondence shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The motion to compel discovery is DENIED; 

3. The motion for sanctions is DENIED; and

3. The motion for the court to enable plaintiff to correspond with inmate witnesses is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 150 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 2