Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES BONTY, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5511 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

CLARIFICATION OF OBJECTION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

DOCUMENTS 

vs.

R. INDERMILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this action plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated because

defendants have denied him a vegetarian diet in compliance with his spiritual beliefs. 

On August 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. After being ordered to do so,

defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 16, 2007. On March 28, 2007, the Court granted

plaintiff’s motion to compel in part and as to plaintiff’s request for production of documents No. 5

ordered: “Plaintiff is granted leave to serve an amended request seeking the actual complaints from 3CFacility inmates concerning requests for accommodation of religious diets. Defendants may redact

personal information from any documents produced.” 

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 84 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants have filed an objection to the Court’s order wherein they clarify their objection to

Request Number 5. Defendants explain that their objection to the request was not that the appeals

themselves would not be admissible but that plaintiff’s reason for seeking the information is not

admissible. Plaintiff argues that he should be given access to information about other inmate appeals

because he believes defendants routinely deny requests for religious diets. Defendants argue this fact

is not admissible and therefore his discovery request for access to other appeals is unnecessary.

Defendants also represent that the inmate appeals are not kept by subject and the only way to identify

appeals seeking religious diets is by hand searching all the records in the Inmate Appeals Office. As a

compromise, defendants offer to answer limited additional interrogatories about their personal practices

in granting and denying requests for special diets.

Appeals filed by other inmates against defendants for denying requests for religious diets are

relevant to plaintiff’s claims in this case. Based on this Court’s experience, appeals against particular

employees are kept in some manner and/or location specificallyreferencing that employee such that they

can be located by the Attorney Generals office and produced during discovery. 

Assuming that defendants can locate documents that meet plaintiff’s request, the documents must

be relevant to the subject matter in the pending action. Thus, grievances, complaints, etc. filed against

the defendants in this action that are factually similar to plaintiff’s allegations in the instant action must

be produced. The events giving rise to the claims against the defendants in this action occurred in July

2003. Accordingly, grievances filed against the named defendants between July 2002 and December

2003 relating to the denial of religious diets should be produced to plaintiff if any can be located.

Defendants shall provide plaintiff with the relevant documents as described in this Order within thirty

days.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 84 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 2