Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG-PC

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

AND STATUS HEARING HELD ON 

JULY 19, 2016

(Resolves ECF No. 80.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HIS 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION

(ECF No. 81.)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND/OR POSTPONEMENT 

OF DEPOSITION

(ECF No. 83.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO 

SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER

Settlement Conference: 

 Monday, August 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

 Courtroom 10 (EPG)

I. BACKGROUND

Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on January 25, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) 

The case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 6, 2014, on 

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff=s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Warden Kimberly Holland, Warden 

Michael Stainer, and Captain J. Lundy, for denial of adequate outdoor exercise time; and 

defendants Captain J. Lundy, Sergeant S. Foster, Plumlee (Maintenance Supervisor), Warden 

Kimberly Holland, Correctional Officer Jordon, and Correctional Officer Uribe, for deliberate 

indifference to unsanitary and unsafe conditions.1 (ECF No. 34.) The events at issue allegedly 

occurred at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, during a 

thirteen-month period while Plaintiff was incarcerated there in segregated housing.

This case is now in the discovery phase, pursuant to the Court’s amended discovery and 

scheduling order filed on December 8, 2015. (ECF No. 64.) The deadline for completion of 

discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, is August 8, 2016, and the deadline for 

filing pretrial dispositive motions is October 17, 2016. (Id.) This case is scheduled for a 

settlement conference before the undersigned on August 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

II. STATUS CONFERENCE

On July 19, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., a telephonic status conference was held before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and 

California Deputy Attorney General R. Lawrence Bragg appeared telephonically on behalf of 

Defendants. Pending before the Court were Plaintiff’s request for a hearing to resolve 

discovery disputes, filed on June 30, 2016 (ECF No. 80); Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious 

litigant, filed on July 5, 2016 (ECF No. 81); and Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and/or 

postponement of deposition, filed on July 15, 2016 (ECF No. 83).

A. Discovery

1. Defendants

Defendants reported that they took Plaintiff’s deposition on July 18, 2016 and are ready 

for the settlement conference.

///

 

1 On March 24, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (ECF No. 36.)

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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. Plaintiff

Plaintiff reported that he served discovery requests in May 2016, which were answered 

by Defendants in June 2016. Plaintiff also served additional requests, which are pending. 

Plaintiff raised the following discovery issues:

a. Motion for Protective Order

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order and/or postponement of 

his deposition scheduled for July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 83.) At the July 19, 2016 hearing, 

Defendants reported that they had taken Plaintiff’s deposition on July 18, 2016. Because the 

deposition was taken, Plaintiff’s motion is moot.

b. Memorandum

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of discovery disputes, in which he asserts that 

that Defendants “redacted a large portion of Operational procedure 111 and Memorandum 

dated January 8, 2010, authored by K. Holland, citing confidential information.” (ECF No. 80 

at 2.) At the hearing, Plaintiff requested an unredacted version of the Memo.

Plaintiff had requested documentation of the number of exercise modules in the IEM 

Yard (exercise yard) at CCI. Defendants asserted that they produced the Memo, which 

concerns the IEM Yard, because the number of exercise modules was given in the Memo, but 

they redacted the remainder of the Memo because it was not responsive to Plaintiff’s request. 

Defendants also argued that the Memo is not relevant, because it concerns a time period 

different from the events at issue in this case.

The Court ordered that by July 26, 2016, Defendants are required to produce any part 

of the Memo which concerns inadequate exercise time, as specified in the Court’s December 

16, 2015 order. (ECF No. 72 at 2-3.) Redactions may be proper, i.e., if the Memo concerns 

issues wholly unrelated to exercise time. However, the fact that the Memo pre-dated events is 

not a basis to redact information regarding exercise. By July 26, 2016, Defendants are required 

to either make a supplemental production of documents to Plaintiff, or submit a brief report that 

no production was made.

///

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 7
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

c. Request for Admissions

In his notice of discovery disputes, Plaintiff asserted that defendant Stainer failed to 

admit, in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 5, that the amount of exercise 

“offered to inmates like plaintiff on IEM/SMY yard status decreased after the conversion of 4A 

units 1-4 from GP to SHU.” (ECF No. 80 at 3.) At the hearing, Defendant objected on the 

ground that the issue is not whether the Plaintiff’s exercise time was increased or decreased, but 

rather how much exercise Plaintiff was allowed. Plaintiff argued that the change was relevant 

to the issue of deliberate indifference. The Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Admissions No. 5, no later than August 5, 2016.

Plaintiff also asserted that defendant Holland failed to admit that Plaintiff was not 

provided exercise consistent with Title 15 requirement of one hour per day, five days per week. 

Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s request is overburdensome because it would require 

Defendant to discover how much exercise time was provided to Plaintiff day-by-day. The 

Court altered Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 2 and ordered Defendants to admit, no 

later than August 5, 2016, that during the time Plaintiff was at CCI, he never was provided 

one hour per day, five days per week for exercise. If Defendants denies this request, they shall 

provide a basis for that denial.

d. Work Orders

Plaintiff reported that the work orders produced by Defendants do not indicate when the 

ceiling was fixed. The Court ordered that by July 26, 2016, Defendants must provide Plaintiff 

with all documents concerning the work orders for the IEM yard for the relevant time period, 

including any resolution of those work orders.

e. Request to Inspect Prison

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of discovery dispute concerning his request to 

Defendants to make arrangements for him to “inspect CCI state prison and to photograph and 

video record the cell and section roof leaks, as well as video record plaintiff pouring food 

coloring in one of the toilets that backflow and flushing it, to show the backflow to the other 

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

toilet, in all the toilets at issue.” (ECF No. 80 at 3.) Plaintiff also requests to photograph the 

exercise yard.

Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s request, on the ground that any inspection by Plaintiff 

at this juncture would not be relevant to the time period of Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants 

also argued that Plaintiff’s request should not be granted because Plaintiff expects to make the 

inspection himself, and because he is not currently housed at CCI and would need to be 

transported there. Defendants also argued that Plaintiff’s damages are minimal because: (1) 

the toilet did not actually overflow, Plaintiff merely needed to flush the toilet to resolve the 

problem, and Plaintiff did not suffer from skin infections; (2) Plaintiff did not require medical 

attention for the asthma he suffered from breathing mold; and (3) after Plaintiff slipped and fell 

on the wet floor, he only required an ice pack and pain medication, and has no resulting back 

problems. Defense counsel further indicated he expected an inspection would likely reveal a 

continuing problem with backflow of toilets because the prison has been denied funding to fix 

the issue.

The Court took the issue of inspection under advisement and invited Defendant to 

respond by August 5, 2016, to a Request for Admission that CCI continues to experience 

problems with backflow of toilets. Although Defendant contests the relevance of this request, 

especially as it concerns cells other than the Plaintiff’s, the Court ruled that the presence of a 

continuing issue at CCI was sufficiently relevant for discovery, especially regarding deliberate 

indifference, and that ordinarily a Plaintiff would be entitled to inspect the premises as part of 

discovery. If Defendants fail to adequately respond to this request, the Court will take that into 

consideration in ruling on Plaintiff’s request for an inspection.

f. Request to Take Depositions

In Plaintiff’s notice of discovery disputes (ECF No. 80), he asserts that Defendants 

objected to his notice of depositions. Plaintiff seeks to take Defendants’ depositions at Kern 

Valley State Prison, “using the prison’s video equipment in lieu of a stenographer due to cost.” 

(Id. at 2.) At the hearing, the Court directed Plaintiff to Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which requires the presence of an officer authorized to take oaths, and Rule 30 

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

which requires that a transcript be made of the deposition proceedings. Plaintiff was advised 

by the Court that he must show that he is able to comply with these requirements and pay the 

required costs before his request to take depositions will be considered.

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

At the hearing, the Court discussed Defendants’ pending motion for summary 

judgment, in which Defendants argue that Plaintiff is barred from bringing state law claims 

because he waited too long after the state denied his claims to file his lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts

that he waited so long because he was still exhausting his prison appeal. 

The Court asked defense counsel if Defendants would have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claims for failure to exhaust if Plaintiff had filed his complaint while his appeal of the 

cancellation of his grievance was pending, even if the six-month period for filing after 

Government Claims had given permission were set to expire. Defense counsel said such a 

complaint would be subject to dismissal because they were separate requirements.

The Court stated that findings and recommendations addressing the motion will be 

issued before the August 1, 2016 settlement conference.

C. Motion to Supplement Opposition 

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 81.) At 

the hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his opposition, with evidence of 

the disposition of Plaintiff’s other case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB, Goosby v. Gentry, which 

Plaintiff submitted to the Court on July 5, 2016. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants may file a reply to 

the supplemented opposition on or before July 25, 2016.

D. Request for Extension of Discovery Deadline

Plaintiff requested an extension of the deadline to complete discovery. The Court 

denied the request and will not allow extra time beyond the August 8, 2016 discovery deadline 

for the filing of motions to compel. That said, Defendants need to respond to outstanding 

requests notwithstanding the discovery deadline.

///

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, filed on July 5, 

2016, is GRANTED, and Defendants may file a reply to the supplemented 

opposition on or before July 25, 2016;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and/or postponement of deposition, filed 

on July 15, 2016, is DENIED as moot.

3. Defendants are ordered to serve discovery responses as instructed by this order;

and

4. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 07/29/16 Page 7 of 7