Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851-22/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. McDONALD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-0851-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This order addresses defendants’ second motion to compel (ECF No. 124). It 

also addresses two motions filed by plaintiff (ECF Nos. 131, 132): (1) “Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel and Motion for Order U.S. District Court under Rule 182 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 83)”; and 

(2) “Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Request for Appointment of Counsel as well 

as Opposing Attorney General Motion to Dismiss.” Lastly, it sets a deadline for the filing of 

dispositive motions. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to compel is granted and 

plaintiff’s motions are denied. 

I. Background 

 On July 29, 2013, defendants moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to their requests for 

production. ECF No. 119. In response, plaintiff filed hundreds of documents with the court. 

ECF No. 121. The court determined that plaintiff had not satisfied his duty to respond to 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 137 Filed 03/21/14 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

defendants’ discovery requests, as it was not clear which of those documents, if any, plaintiff 

intended to serve as his discovery responses. ECF No. 123. On September 10, 2013, the court 

granted defendants’ motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to serve his responses on defendants 

within 14 days. Id. 

II. Defendants’ Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 124) 

 On October 24, 2013, defendants filed a second motion to compel, accompanied by 

defense counsel’s sworn declaration. ECF No. 124. Defense counsel indicates that plaintiff 

failed to serve discovery responses as ordered. ECF No. 124-6, ¶ 4. On October 17, 2013, 

defense counsel spoke with plaintiff. Plaintiff purportedly told counsel that the documents he 

sent to the court and to the defendants “were all the documents he had.” Id. ¶ 5. Defense counsel 

explained that he had received the documents, but that he could not determine which of them, if 

any, corresponded to defendants’ requests for production of documents. Id. Defense counsel 

offered to read the requests line by line, and go through the documents page by page, in order 

determine which documents, if any, were responsive to each request. Id. Defense counsel also 

offered to contact the prison staff to see if anybody could help plaintiff go through the documents 

with him. Id. Plaintiff refused both offers. Id. Defendants now move for (1) a second order 

compelling plaintiff to serve further responses to their requests for production; and (2) an order 

sanctioning plaintiff by requiring that he pay defendants’ costs for bringing the instant motion. 

ECF No. 124. 

 On December 4, 2013, after plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ second motion to 

compel, the court ordered plaintiff to file a response within 21 days. ECF No. 126. The court 

warned plaintiff that his failure to respond to the motion was in violation of the court’s rules, and 

could result in sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal. Id. 

On December 9, 2013, plaintiff informed the court that he had made a “good faith 

attempt” to comply with the court’s order by sending “all the documents” to the defendants. ECF 

No. 127. Thus, plaintiff apparently believes that the documents he sent to defendants are 

responsive to their document requests. The problem that remains, however, is that it is not readily 

apparent which of those documents correspond to each of defendants’ document requests. 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 137 Filed 03/21/14 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

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is granted. Within 14 days of the date of this order, 

plaintiff shall inform defendants, orally or in writing, which documents are responsive to each 

request. The parties shall make a good faith attempt to resolve this issue informally. 

 Defendants’ request to sanction plaintiff for his non-compliance is denied. However, 

plaintiff is admonished that although he is proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. See 

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural requirements apply to all litigants, 

including prisoners lacking access to counsel); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“Any individual 

representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or 

Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law.”). Plaintiff’s failure to obey the 

court’s orders and the local and federal rules including rules regarding his responsibilities in 

responding to discovery and in prosecuting this action may justify dismissal, including dismissal 

with prejudice. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1992); Carey v. King, 856 

F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for pro se prisoner’s 

failure to comply with local rule requiring he notify the court of any change of address). 

III. Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 131, 132) 

 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 131. District courts lack 

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. 

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may 

request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 

1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court 

must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there 

are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

 On February 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a second motion, entitled “Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Motion for Request for Appointment of Counsel as well as Opposing Attorney 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 137 Filed 03/21/14 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

General Motion to Dismiss.” ECF No. 132. Aside from renewing his request for counsel, the 

only relief requested by plaintiff is for the court to “order all sworn and nonsworn . . . personal 

files, supervisory files, adverse action files, grievance files, action files, . . . employee relation 

files[, and] records of inmate 602’s.” ECF No. 132 at 11; see also id. at 16-18. Construed as a 

motion to compel, the motion is denied as untimely. See ECF No. 109 (Discovery & Scheduling 

Order requiring that all motions to compel be filed by July 29, 2013). A scheduling order may be 

modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the 

moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate that good cause supports his implied request to modify the schedule. 

IV. Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ second motion to compel (ECF No. 124) is granted to the extent that 

plaintiff shall, within 14 days of the date of this order, inform defendants, orally or in 

writing, which of his documents are responsive to each of defendants’ document 

requests. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 131) is denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s February 7, 2014 motion (ECF No. 132), construed as a renewed request for 

appointment of counsel and motion to compel, is denied. 

4. Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 60 days from the date of this order. 

DATED: March 21, 2014. 

 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 137 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 4