Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-37/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel filed December 22,

2006 (court file doc. # 108), January 19, 2007 (court file doc. # 118), and April 24, 2007 (court

file doc. # 167).

December 22, 2006, Motion to Compel

On April 30, 2007, defendants filed an opposition (court file doc. # 170) to the

motion to compel filed December 22, 2006. This motion to compel concerns interrogatory

responses by defendants Joseph and Coleman. In their opposition, defendants state that on April

25, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation in which defendants were permitted additional time to

respond to these discovery responses and plaintiff was permitted additional time to file any

necessary corresponding motions to compel. Good cause appearing, the December 22, 2006,

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 194 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 5
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

motion to compel is denied as unnecessary.

January 19, 2007, Motion to Compel

The January 19, 2007, motion to compel concerns responses by defendants Arong,

Turella and Zink to plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, defendant Arong’s

response to plaintiff’s first request for admissions, and defendant Turella’s response to plaintiff’s

second set of interrogatories. On April 27, 2007, defendants filed an opposition (court file doc. #

169). 

Plaintiff claims that defendant Turella did not respond to the second set of

interrogatories. In the opposition, defendants state that on April 25, 2007, the parties filed a

stipulation in which plaintiff admits that he received these responses. Good cause appearing, this

portion of the motion to compel is deemed resolved.

In the motion to compel, plaintiff argues that defendant Arong objected to many

requests for admissions due to lack of knowledge or information, but fails to state that he made

any effort to obtain responses. Plaintiff argues that the information sought in request nos. 37-57

was readily available to defendant. 

In the opposition, defendants argue that while plaintiff generally refers to request

nos. 37-57, he does not further specify any responses he is referring to, and nor does no describe

how these responses are deficient other than to say that the information sought was readily

available to defendant. Defendants argue that defendant Arong adequately answered request nos.

37-57.

The court agrees that the motion to compel should be denied as to all requests, but

for 37-57, on grounds that plaintiff failed to specifically identify any responses he was referring

to nor describe why the responses were inadequate. The court has also reviewed request nos. 37-

57 and finds that these requests, for the most part, asked for interpretations of case law and

regulations. In addition, many of these requests cited class action lawsuits such as Plata v. Davis

and Madrid v. Gomez, and apparently sought defendants’s opinion regarding his obligations

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 194 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 5
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

under the terms of the settlements of these actions. As observed by defendants in their

opposition, defendant Arong is not a lawyer so that interpretation of law and regulations is

beyond the scope of his knowledge and employment. For example, request no. 51 states, 

Prisoners at CSP-SAC should be provided ready access to adequate medical care. 

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1146, 1258 (N.D. Cal. (1995)(citing Hoptowit v. 

Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Request no. 49 states,

At CSP-SAC, security staff (or lack thereof) should not dangerously delay

prisoner access to emergency medical treatment. (Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp.

1146, 1257 (N.D.Cal. 1995)(citing Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1477, 1502, 1545

(D. Arizona 1993).

Request no. 57 states,

On February 3, 2007, you were fully aware of your responsibilities, duties, and

obligations as an MTA per Plata v. Davis, (N.D. Cal.) Col-1351, THE, Health

Care Services Division Policies and Procedures; California Business and

Professions Code, section 2873.6, which set specific guidelines to follow in your

ability and duties in providing medical assessment, care and treatment to Robert

Fuentes or any other prisoner, on February 3, 2004. 

As worded, these requests seek interpretations of the law which is outside the

scope of defendant’s knowledge. Moreover, requests for admissions cannot be used to compel

an admission of a conclusion of law. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050,

1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999). Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses by defendant Arong

to plaintiff’s request for admissions is denied.

In the motion to compel, plaintiff argues that in response to his request for

production of documents, defendants provided boilerplate objections. Plaintiff states that of the

documents provided, most had nothing to do with the 2004 year time frame requested. Plaintiff

states that each document sought is relevant. 

As noted by defendants in their opposition, plaintiff does not specify which

responses he is objecting to and nor does not specifically describe how defendants’ responses are

inadequate. It is not the court’s duty to go through each request for production addressed to each

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 194 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 5
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

defendant in order to determine whether a response is inadequate. It is plaintiff’s duty to inform

the court and defendants of his specific objections to each of the at-issue requests. The court

cannot make plaintiff’s argument for him. On this ground, the motion to compel further

responses to the request for production of documents is denied.

April 24, 2007, Motion to Compel

The April 24, 2007, motion to compel concerns defendant Flint’s response to

plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one. On May 15, 2007, defendants filed an opposition

(court file doc. # 176). 

This at-issue request for admissions contained 44 requests. See exhibits attached

to motion to compel. Plaintiff argues that defendant improperly objected that the requests were

vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Plaintiff also argues while defendant objected that he lacked

knowledge as to some requests, he failed to make any reasonable inquiry in an attempt to

respond.

As observed by defendants in their opposition, plaintiff did not specify the

individual responses to which he was objecting and nor did he discuss why any particular

response was inadequate. The court also notes that with a few exceptions, the admission requests

are conclusions of law. As stated above, requests for admissions cannot be used to compel an

admission of a conclusion of law. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050,

1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999). 

Plaintiff also argues that defendants failed to correct a typographical error in a

response for the purpose of misleading him. In the opposition, defendants state that once

plaintiff brought the error to the attention of defense counsel, counsel fixed the problem and

drafted a letter to plaintiff correcting the error. The letter was not sent to plaintiff because of a

phone call which remedies the error. This alleged error is not grounds on which to grant the

motion to compel.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 194 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

For the reasons discussed above, the April 24, 2007, motion to compel is denied.

Other Matters

The September 21, 2006, scheduling order set the discovery cut-off date at

January 12, 2007. Other than the discovery matters still outstanding as a result of requests by

extensions of time ordered by the court, discovery is closed as to defendants Arong, Zink, Flint,

Joseph, Coleman and Turella. On April 11, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file a

supplemental complaint naming new defendants Barz and Larson. The court also vacated the

motion cut-off date. The court did not extend the discovery cut-off deadline as to the already

served defendants.

On June 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion

to compel as to defendant Joseph’s and Colemen’s response to plaintiff’s first set of

interrogatories. See May 2, 2007, discovery stipulation. Good cause appearing, this request is

granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to compel filed December 22, 2006 (# 108) is denied;

2. The motion to compel filed January 19, 2007 (court file doc. # 118), is denied;

3. The motion to compel filed April 24, 2007 (court file doc. # 167), is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s June 11, 2007, request for extension of time is granted; plaintiff is

granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a motion to compel regarding the responses

of defendants Joseph and Coleman to his first set of interrogatories. 

DATED: 7/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

fue675.com(3) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 194 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 5