Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062-13/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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER PETERSON, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT VALLES

TO SERVE RESPONSE TO NUMBER 9 AS

REDRAFTED BY THE COURT AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL AS TO ALL OTHER

INTERROGATORIES 

(Doc. 43)

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

Defendants Peterson and Valles for retaliating against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment

and for denial of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On April 14, 2008,

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Defendants filed a response on May 1, 2008, and Plaintiff filed

a reply on May 19, 2008. 

Plaintiff’s claim arise from the following events. On May 30, 2005, Defendant Peterson

punished him by confining him to quarters for failing to report to work. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Peterson confined him to quarters in retaliation for the grievance and lawsuit he filed

against Correctional Officers Clark and Williams. Plaintiff further alleges that he was in the A1A

privilege group, and he should have been allowed to participate in day room activities with the rest

///

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 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

2

of the group. Plaintiff alleges that because other inmates who were not on “C status” were allowed

day room privileges, he was discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 12, 2006, Defendant Valles searched his cell, and confiscated

and destroyed two recycled art statues made from paper and bread. Plaintiff alleges that the prison

was on lock-down at the time and staff had been ordered to search every cell. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Valles destroyed his two statues in retaliation for the grievance and lawsuit Plaintiff filed

against Correctional Officers Williams and Clark. 

Plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to his

claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery sought may include information that is not

admissible as long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Id. If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden

on his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Plaintiff must inform the

Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed

response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants’ objections

are not justified. 

In this instance, Defendants properly oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that Plaintiff

failed to meet his burden as the moving party. However, having reviewed the motion and attached

interrogatories, the Court exercises its discretion to resolve the motion in spite of its deficiencies.

I. Valles Interrogatories

ROG 7: “There is an African American c/o Williams and a Caucasian c/o Williams working on Dyard of the prison . . . which one of the c/o Williams’ is plaintiff accusing you of retaliating against

him for?”

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. As framed, this interrogatory does not

appear to be directed at obtaining evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has made no

showing to the contrary in his motion.

ROG 9: “Did it upset you that plaintiff filed a non-frivolous civil action against your co-workers c/o

Clark and C/O Williams?”

///

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Ruling: Defendant’s objection to the interrogatory as framed is sustained. Defendant is directed to

respond to the following interrogatory: “Did it upset you that Plaintiff filed a civil action against

your co-workers C/O Clark and C/O Williams?”

ROG 10: “Has a non-frivolous civil action ever been filed against you by an inmate?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection sustained. Plaintiff has made no showing as to relevance and the

interrogatory is ambiguous as to “non-frivolous.”

ROG 11: “Can you Advice plaintiff of each and every false statement he made against you in the

complaint?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. The interrogatory is incomprehensible as framed.

ROG 12: “You claim in ‘Defendant’s Answer; Demand for Jury Trial’ on page 3, line 19 that

‘plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to his damages.’ So you do admit that plaintiff suffered

damages?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is not a proper interrogatory as framed.

ROG 13: “When a correctional officer’s life is threatened by an inmate or inmates, is it possible that

the officer Contributed to his own hardship by being a vindictive, mean and retaliating officer?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory does not appear to be relevant, and

it is argumentative as framed.

ROG 14: “Wasn’t c/o Williams’ life recently threatened in the month of November 2007?” 

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory does not appear relevant.

ROG 16: “Plaintiff has had eight (8) unrecorded fights, because of your co-workers, please see

paged 55, lines 20-27 of the Complaint . . . do you approve of the way they had plaintiff targeted by

other inmates?

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. As framed, this interrogatory does not appear to seek

information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

ROG 19: “Have you corrected your retaliating ways since destroying plaintiff’s statues, or have you

did the same to another inmate since then?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory is argumentative and assumes as true

facts that are in dispute.

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 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

4

ROG 20: “Do you consider it ‘poetic justice’ when a sex offender or child abuser is attacked by

officers and/or inmates?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory does not appear to be seeking

relevant evidence, and is ambiguous as to poetic justice.

ROG 22: “If it was your choice alone would you want a trial by Judge, or trial by jury?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is an improper interrogatory seeking information

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

ROG 23: “Do you want to settle this civil action out of court?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is an improper interrogatory seeking information

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

ROG 24: “Due to c/o Williams, c/o Clark, and your actions against plaintiff, shouldn’t the damages

awarded to plaintiff be aggravated damages?” 

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is an improper interrogatory seeking information

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. It also assumes the violation of Plaintiff’s rights by Defendant, an

issue which is in dispute.

ROG 25: “Without any input from your attorney, what do you consider a fair settlement offer to

plaintiff (the dollar amount)? A) Compensation, B) Punitive, C) Other.”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory does not seek evidence relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims.

II. Peterson Interrogatories 

ROG 1: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 7.

ROG 6: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 12.

ROG 7: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 13.

ROG 8: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 14.

ROG 11: “Have you corrected your ways since confining plaintiff to his quarters, or have you did

the same thing to another inmate since then?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. The interrogatory is argumentative and assumes as true

facts which are in dispute.

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 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

5

ROG 12: “Is plaintiff mitigates his damages, does that make you less guilty, or does it mean plaintiff

should request less money for his damages?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is not a proper interrogatory.

ROG 13: “Should the discrimination, harassment & retaliation on numerous occasions by your coworkers listed in ‘Declaration of Plaintiff’ (pages 55-56 of Complaint) raise damages suffered by

plaintiff to an aggravated level?

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This is not a proper interrogatory.

ROG 14: “When you, in your official capacity abide the rules & regulations of the Title 15 does it

guarantee plaintiff the right to ‘Duce Process of the law?’”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. The interrogatory is not comprehensible, seeks a legal

opinion beyond the scope of what is permissible, and does not seek evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s

claims.

ROG 15: “Do you have the right to punish an inmate without benefit of a disciplinary hearing?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained.

ROG 17: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 16.

ROG 18: “Shouldn’t inmates that were convicted of sex crime have a prison yard for them & child

abusers only to prevent the violence against them?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory seeks information irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s claims.

ROG 19: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 20.

ROG 20: “Why did you stop working in the building after you confined plaintiff to quarters

illegally?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. As framed, this interrogatory assumes as true facts

which are in dispute. Further, it does not appear seek evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

ROG 21: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 22.

ROG 22: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 23.

ROG 23: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 24.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 5 of 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

6

ROG 24: “Shouldn’t defendant T. Valle’s actions against plaintiff aggravate the damages awarded

to plaintiff also?”

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained. This interrogatory does not seek evidence relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims.

ROG 25: Motion to compel denied. See Valles ROG 25.

III. Order

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the merits and HEREBY

DIRECTS Defendant Valles to serve a response to interrogatory number 9 as redrafted by the Court.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED as to all other interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 7, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 47 Filed 07/07/08 Page 6 of 6