Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00366/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00366-4/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Spencer E. Berry,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0366 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Cheryl Pliler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this

civil rights action on the claim defendants Burciaga, Pliler,

Rosario and Vance were deliberately indifferent to serious risks

to plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff alleges all defendants knew of

recent, escalating attacks with prison-made weapons between

hispanic and white prisoners and that a security door between two

sections of the prison did not lock properly. When Burciaga

released plaintiff to the shower, two hispanic prisoners entered

the shower area through the unlocked door and attacked plaintiff, 

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/30/05 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

2

stabbing him repeatedly. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(B), plaintiff moves to compel defendants to respond to

requests for production of documents. 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought need not be

admissible at trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The court may

limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or obtainable from a more convenient or

less expensive source, the party seeking discovery had ample

opportunity to obtain the information sought, or the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). A party has a continuing duty to

supplement, correct or amend discovery responses if the court so

orders or if the party learns the responses were in some material

respect incorrect or incomplete and the information has not

otherwise been made available to other parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e)(2).

Any party may request any other party produce for inspection

documents including writings, drawings, graphs, charts or data

compilations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The requesting party must

identify the items to be produced and the party upon whom the

request is made must make a written response stating that

inspection will be permitted as requested, unless the party 

objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/30/05 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

3

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to requests to

produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 34(b). 

Plaintiff requests “[c]opies of any and all documents,

policy statements, reports and/or other written materials that

set forth official duties, policies or standard actions regarding

riots or melees, [racially] motivated riots or melees,

substantial acts of violence and/or serious injury incidents.” 

Defendants object the information is beyond the scope of

discovery.

The objection is sustained. Federal law governs defendants’

duty to protect plaintiff, not prison policy statements, etc.

Plaintiff requests “[c]opies of any and all documents which

contain, mention or discuss staff misconduct reviews of defendant

S. Burciaga, in connection with appeal log #SAC-B-03-00378

(Exhibit C of Complaint) including but not limited to reviews by

the Sac Executive Use of Force (U.O.F.) Review Committee and the

Investigative Services Unit (I.S.U.), and the outcome of these

reviews whether plaintiff’s allegations were substantiated or

not.”

Defendants object plaintiff seeks information outside the

scope of discovery.

The objection is sustained.

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/30/05 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

4

Accordingly, plaintiff’s April 15, 2005, motion is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4