Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-48/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 223).

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 185-page document titled 

“Objection to Defendants’ Compliance with Court Order (ECF No. 199) and in Support to 

Disposition.” (ECF No. 223). Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce further 

discovery responses and to appoint counsel. Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to 

further relief and have submitted their supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs and responses 

to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. (ECF No. 227). For the following reasons, the Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s motion.1

1 The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension to file a reply in support of his motion to compel. 

(ECF No. 238 at 2). 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 245 Filed 04/22/24 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

27

28

2

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion raises several separate requests. The Court will address each in turn.2

A. Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Admission

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ responses to his Requests for Admission are deficient, 

and that Defendants improperly altered his requests. (Id. at 4-8). Plaintiff contends the Court 

should have allowed him to submit up to 25 RFAs per party. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff asks the Court to 

compel Defendants answer Plaintiff’s 25 RFAs. (Id. at 10). 

As background, on December 13, 2023, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiff’ motion to 

compel written responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission. (ECF No. 199). Specifically, the 

Court ordered Defendants to “serve Plaintiff written responses to Plaintiff’s first 15 RFAs (ECF 

No. 172, pp. 42-43) by no later than January 26, 2024. Defendants shall also file a notice of 

compliance with the Court.” (Id. at 4). On January 22, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of 

compliance, asserting that Defendants served “responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, 

numbers one through fifteen, on January 19, 2024.” (ECF No. 218 at 2).

The Court will not address Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the number of RFAs, which the 

Court has previously addressed. 

Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ supplemental RFA responses Nos. 

5-15, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied. 

B. Motion to Compel Other Discovery

Plaintiff states that he does not have the Court’s order (ECF No. 199) and he is unaware if 

the Court ordered Defendants to answer his interrogatory requests. (ECF No. 223 at 1). Plaintiff 

asks the Court to compel Defendants answer 15 Interrogatories per party. (Id. at 10). 

The Court has addressed Plaintiffs’ requests to compel further interrogatory responses or 

propound additional interrogatories several times. (See ECF No. 199 (granting, in part, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel RFA responses, and otherwise denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel 

Defendants to Answer Production of Documents and to Answer Interrogatory request”); ECF No. 

2 This case has a lengthy procedural history. For background, the Court refers the parties to the Court’s 

past orders. (See ECF No. 95 at 1-2; ECF No. 111 at 1-3; ECF No. 116; ECF No. 118 at 4-5; ECF No. 137 

at 2-5; ECF No. 141 at 1-2; ECF No. 142 at 1-2; ECF No. 167 at 1-4; ECF No. 175 at 1-2; ECF No. 177 at 

2-4; ECF No. 187 at 2-5; ECF No. 199 at 3; ECF No. 200 at 1-2; ECF No. 229 at 3; ECF No. 230 at 3). 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 245 Filed 04/22/24 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

27

28

3

187 (denying Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant Allison respond to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatory requests); ECF No. 167 (denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to propound additional 

interrogatories and motion to compel interrogatory responses); ECF No. 137 (denying Plaintiff’s 

motion for additional time to compel discovery and submit interrogatory requests)). Plaintiff has 

also filed objections to these orders with the District Judge, who has overruled them. (See ECF 

No. 195 (“Upon review of the orders denying Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 

discovery motions (Doc. 137), denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142), granting 

Defendants’ request for an extension of time (Doc. 167), denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to 

propound additional interrogatories and motion to compel interrogatories (id.), denying Plaintiff’s 

request to stay and request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 175), and partially denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 177), the Court finds that the assigned magistrate judge 

correctly applied the applicable law.”).

The Court also previously ordered Defendants to “produce to Plaintiff any complaints 

filed in a court of law concerning excessive force made against Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, 

Huerta, Cathey, Wolf, and Allison, as well as any complaints filed a court of law concerning 

fabricated evidence made against Defendants Gamboa, Babb, and Sanders.” (ECF No. 177 at 10). 

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that Defendants asked for an extension of time to produce these cases 

but failed to comply with the Court’s order. (ECF No. 223 at 10). 

On November 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants an extension to serve supplemental 

discovery responses, including the relevant court cases, on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 186). On 

November 28, 2023, Defendants filed a notice with the Court, stating that:

On November 9, 2023, in accordance with the Order, Defendants served Plaintiff 

supplemental responses to Request Number One, to include complaints filed in 

courts of law alleging excessive force and relating to Defendants J. Hubbard and 

M. Huerta. At that time, Defendants also responded to inform Plaintiff that, after 

making a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, Defendants were not in 

possession, custody, or control of responsive documents relating to Defendants T. 

Wolf or V. Cathey alleging excessive force. 

On November 22, 2023, in accordance with the Order, Defendants served Plaintiff 

supplemental responses to Request Number One, including complaints filed in 

courts of law alleging excessive force and relating to Defendants D. Hernandez 

and K. Allison. Defendants further supplemented their previous responses relating 

to Defendants T. Wolf and J. Hubbard after discovering additional responsive 

documents. Defendants also served supplemental responses, including complaints 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 245 Filed 04/22/24 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

27

28

4

filed in courts of law alleging fabrication of evidence by Defendants T. Sanders 

and M. Gamboa, and informing Plaintiff that, after making a reasonable inquiry 

and diligent search, Defendants were not in possession, custody, or control of 

responsive documents relating to Defendant S. Babb alleging fabrication of 

evidence.

(ECF No. 192 at 2). 

Plaintiff does not explain why he believes Defendants have not fully produced all court 

complaints as ordered by the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff’s reply brief states that Plaintiff “agree[s] 

that Defendants have produce[d] court cases in part.” (ECF No. 241 at 3). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further response as to relevant court cases is denied. 

C. Motion for the Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel

Plaintiff also requests the assistance of counsel because he is an E.O.P. patient and his 

primary language is Spanish. (ECF No. 223 at 8-9). As a reason why counsel should be 

appointed, Plaintiff indicates that he only recently found out that, once the Court denies his 

motion to compel the production of documents, he has a right to appeal to the District Judge as 

permissible under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

As discussed above, Plaintiff has filed several objections with the District Judge, which 

demonstrates his continued ability to litigate this case. Moreover, Plaintiff has previously 

indicated that he speaks English and has specifically directed the Court to not use a Spanish 

translator. (See ECF No. 205 at 1-2). Plaintiff’s request is denied. 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 223) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 245 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 4