Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO WHEATLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00481-CDB

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DEEM 

ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

(Doc. 43) 

Plaintiff Ricardo Wheatley is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against Defendants Dominguez and Flores, Eighth Amendment failure to 

intervene claims against Dominguez, Denney, and Hernandez, and Eighth Amendment medical 

indifference claims against Dominguez, Denney, Flores, and Hernandez.

I. INTRODUCTION1

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on February 20, 2024. (Doc. 36.) 

The scheduling order included a discovery deadline of October 20, 2024, and a dispositive motion 

filing deadline of December 30, 2024. (Id.) 

1 This action was assigned to the undersigned “for all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment” on 

March 1, 2024, following the consent of all parties. (See Doc. 39.) 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 8
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

On October 3, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte unopposed motion to extend 

the discovery and dispositive motion filing deadlines. (Doc. 42.) Specifically, the deadline for the 

completion of all discovery was extended to December 19, 2024, and the deadline for filing 

dispositive motions was extended to February 28, 2025. (Id. at 2.) 

Defendants filed their motion to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses and to deem 

admissions admitted on December 19, 2024. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion.

On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed a status update regarding their motion to compel. 

(Doc. 44.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants’ Motion

Briefly stated, Defendants state they propounded the following discovery requests to 

Plaintiff on October 9, 2024: (1) Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One; and (2) 

Defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One. Responses were due within 45 days, or no later than 

November 25, 2024. Defendants contend that during Plaintiff’s deposition of December 12, 2024, 

when defense counsel “explained that he had not received Plaintiff’s discovery response,” 

Plaintiff “replied that he did not respond” and indicated he would serve his responses. The 

following day, defense counsel sent a follow-up letter to Plaintiff concerning the late discovery 

responses and provided “a unilateral courtesy extension” to December 18, 2024. Defense counsel 

also advised Plaintiff he would move to compel responses and seek sanctions if Plaintiff did not 

provide responses. Defendants maintain Plaintiff has failed to respond to their discovery requests 

and ask the Court to grant their motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories 

served October 9, 2024. Further, Defendants argue this Court should deem their requests for 

admissions served October 9, 2024, admitted pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Defendants’ Status Update

Defendants report that on December 31, 2024, defense counsel received an envelope 

containing Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for admission. 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 8
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

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s untimely responses do not resolve the pending motion because the 

responses are deficient “and effectively unresponsive.” First, Defendants contend Plaintiff failed 

to sign the responses and did not include a proof of service. Second, Plaintiff’s interrogatory 

responses lack the required verification —the date and a signature. Third, Defendants argue 

Plaintiff’s responses to the request for admissions “are non-responsive” because the majority of 

those responses “fail to abide by his duty to admit or deny the requests.” Fourth, Defendants 

maintain Plaintiff’s responses to the request for admissions are late “which still renders his full 

admissions automatic.” Defendants conclude that in light of those deficiencies, the motion 

“remains active—especially where Plaintiff has not signed responses.”

Analysis

District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 

litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 

(9th Cir. 2012). “‘[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and 

its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial 

of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.’” Dichter-Mad 

Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 

F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)) (alteration omitted).

Interrogatories

Defendants originally asserted that Plaintiff failed to respond to the interrogatories served 

October 9, 2024. Defendants contended that during his deposition last month Plaintiff admitted he 

did not respond to the interrogatories and advised defense counsel that he would serve responses 

to the discovery request. 

Defendants served the following interrogatories to Plaintiff:

1. State the full names of all “officers” who were aware of your “mental break-down” as 

alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

2. Describe all facts that show how you know “officers” alerted Defendant Denney to 

your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

3. Describe all facts that show how you know “officers” alerted Defendant Dominguez to 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 8
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

your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

4. Describe how long it took Denney to come to your cell after Denney was alerted to 

your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

5. Describe how long it took Dominguez to come to your cell after Dominguez was 

alerted to your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

6. State when you cut your wrist as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint —

including the date and time.

7. State when you attempted to hang yourself as alleged in your Second Amended 

Complaint —including the date and time.

8. Describe what time you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard 

before your incident with Defendants.

9. Explain why you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard before 

your incident with Defendants.

10. Describe each prior occurrence where you attempted suicide—including the date, 

where you were housed, and how you attempted suicide.

11. Describe all facts that explain how you know Defendants Denney and Dominguez 

opened the “tr[a]y slot” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint.

12. Describe all facts that explain how you know Defendants Denney and Dominguez 

noticed that you were “laying on the ground unresponsive” as alleged in your Second 

Amended Complaint.

13. Describe when you became responsive after being unresponsive as alleged in your 

Second Amended Complaint.

14. Describe all actions you took after Defendants opened the cell door.

15. Describe all of your injuries from the incident with Defendants.

16. Describe all medical care you received after the incident with Defendants.

17. State the amount of damages you are seeking in your lawsuit against Defendants.

18. Describe how you came up with the amount of damages in Interrogatory No. 17.

(Doc. 43-1 at 12-17.) 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 4 of 8
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

5

As noted in the status update filed by Defendants following the pending motion to compel, 

Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses received by defense counsel on December 31, 2024, are 

unsigned (see Doc. 44-1 at 4-10, 14) and therefore incomplete. Discovery responses must be 

signed and dated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A)-(B) (signature requirements and effect). Hence, 

Defendants’ motion to compel, concerning the interrogatories, will be granted in part and Plaintiff 

will be directed to provide properly verified interrogatory responses to Defendants within 14 

days. 

Admissions

Defendants originally contended Plaintiff failed to respond to the request for admissions 

served October 9, 2024. Defendants contended that during his deposition last month Plaintiff 

admitted he did not respond to the request for admissions. Defendants asked the Court to deem 

the request for admissions admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3). 

Defendants sought the following requests for admissions from Plaintiff:

1. Admit the incident with Defendants occurred on July 18, 2019.

2. Admit that none of the Defendants saw you before you cut your wrist.

3. Admit that none of the Defendants saw you before you attempted to hang yourself.

4. Admit that you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard before 

your incident with Defendants.

5. Admit that you did not respond to Defendant Denney’s attempts to communicate with 

you before Defendants entered your cell.

6. Admit that you were on the ground of your cell with a bedsheet around your neck 

before correctional staff entered your cell.

7. Admit that you heard one of the Defendants request medical assistance.

8. Admit that you stood up when the correctional staff opened your cell door.

9. Admit that you moved toward the correctional staff when they opened your cell door.

(Doc. 43-1 at 5-7.) 

Rule 36 provides in relevant part:

///

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted 

unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the 

request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or 

objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its 

attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated 

to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A failure to timely respond to requests for admissions results in 

automatic admission of matters requested, even if requesting party makes no motion to establish 

admissions; the rule is self-executing. Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 662 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1229 

(E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Medicor, 217 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 

2002)). “Once admitted, the matter ‘is conclusively established unless the court on motion 

permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.’” Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)).

Here, as indicated in Defendants’ status update, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ request 

for admissions on December 18, 2024. (See Doc. 44-1 at 11-13.) Nonetheless, Defendants argue 

the responses are largely unresponsive, late—and as such, already admitted—and are unsigned. 

First, the Court agrees Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions are 

largely unresponsive. Rule 36 provides in relevant part: “If a matter is not admitted, the answer 

must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or 

deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires 

that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part 

admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Plaintiff neither expressly 

admitted nor expressly denied any of the twelve requests. A careful review of Plaintiff’s 

responses reveals Plaintiff’s several responses to Defendants’ requests are unresponsive. For 

example, in request number 1, Plaintiff was asked to admit that the incident in question occurred 

on July 18, 2019. Plaintiff’s response is as follows: “Plaintiffs felt suicidal because of misconduct 

by a staff member working on the floor on July 19, 2019 and was assaulted by defendants on July 

18, 2019.” It is unclear whether Plaintiff admits or denies the incident occurred on July 18, 2019, 

or how his response might amount to a partial denial. By way of another example, in request 

number 2, Plaintiff was asked to admit “that none of the Defendants saw you before you cut your 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 6 of 8
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

7

wrist.” Plaintiff responds, “Plaintiff then cut his wrist with an open razor, causing bleeding. 

Plaintiff yelled to tower officer Hernandez that he needed medical treatment.” Plaintiff’s response 

in no way addresses whether any defendant saw him before he cut his wrist. Plaintiff’s response 

to request number 3 is similar; asked to admit that no defendant “saw” him before he attempted to 

hang himself, Plaintiff wrote: “Plaintiff cut up a sheet and tried to hang himself, that’s when Sgt 

D. Dominguez states his name and to remove the window covering.” Again, Plaintiff’s response 

in no way addresses whether any defendant saw him before he attempted to hang himself. 

Plaintiff will be directed to resubmit his responses to the requests for admissions by expressly 

admitting or denying each request and by providing any additional information that is fairly 

responsive to the request. Said another way, Plaintiff should first state whether he admits or 

denies each particular request. Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to explain his admission or 

denial for each request, he should respond to the language used in that specific request. 

To the extent Defendants argue Plaintiff’s responses received by defense counsel on 

December 31, 2024, are late, the Court is not persuaded. The envelope accompanying Plaintiff’s 

responses is dated “12-18-24” and includes a staff name of “Adgweye,” badge number of 

“90221,” and a staff signature. (Doc. 44-1 at 17.) See, e.g., Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 

(1988) (pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be 

filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk); 

Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston

applies to civil rights actions); Jones v. Kuppinger, No. 2:13-cv-0451 WBS AC P, 2015 WL 

5522290, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Although the parties dispute the calculation of the 

date on which plaintiff served these discovery requests, the court finds that the appropriate date is 

May 28, 2015, by application of the prison mailbox rule”). And defense counsel’s letter of 

December 13, 2024, states: “As a courtesy, I will permit you to serve your full, substantive 

responses on or before December 18, 2024.” (See Doc. 43-1 at 22, emphasis in original.) Thus, 

while Plaintiff’s responses are somewhat deficient, they were timely submitted after the extension 

granted by Defendants. Relatedly, the Court finds Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff’s late 

responses “render[] his full admissions automatic” equally unpersuasive. The responses are not 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 7 of 8
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

8

late, and thus, are not self-executing so as to be admitted. See Smith, 662 F.Supp.2d at 1229; 

cf. Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-CV-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669, at 

*5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (declining to consider defendant’s requests for admission deemed 

admitted, notwithstanding plaintiff did not timely respond, given that plaintiff did serve amended 

responses). 

Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions are timely. Nevertheless, the 

responses are lacking verification and require supplementation to include an express “admit” or 

“deny” response and to fairly respond to the substance of each request, as explained above. 

Plaintiff will be directed to provide an amended response to Defendants within 14 days. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in 

part; 

2. Plaintiff SHALL provide the required verification for his responses to the 

interrogatories served October 9, 2024, within 14 days of the date of this order, by reserving Defendants with a properly completed response; and

3. Plaintiff SHALL amend his responses to the request for admissions served October 9, 

2024, within 14 days of the date of this order, by re-serving Defendants with a 

properly completed response, to (1) include a verification, (2) expressly “admit” or 

“deny” each request, and (3) fairly respond to the substance of the request.

Any failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this Order may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 45 Filed 01/16/25 Page 8 of 8