Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-23/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s October 20, 2006, motion to compel. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Flint provided inadequate responses to his request for production

of documents. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Flint and Arong provided inadequate responses to

interrogatories. 

Plaintiff did not provide copies of the at-issue discovery requests and defendants’

responses with the motion to compel. However, in his “request for intervention” filed October

20, 2006, plaintiff alleges that he failed to provide these documents because prison officials

failed to make copies. Defendants attached copies of these documents to their opposition filed

November 22, 2006. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 122 Filed 02/02/07 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

2

As observed by defendants in their opposition, beyond making general statements

of law regarding why defendants’ responses were inadequate, plaintiff’s motion to compel does

not identify which particular objections or responses are unfounded. Without knowing which

particular responses plaintiff is objecting to, the court cannot rule on his motion to compel. 

Plaintiff’s inability to obtain copies of the at-issue discovery and responses should not have

impeded his ability to identify the responses he is objecting to in the motion to compel.

The court also observes that defendants provided substantive responses to many of

the interrogatories. For example, interrogatory no. 12 addressed to defendant Arong asked, 

What was the departmental or institutional protocol or practice for reporting

incidents in which medical technical assistants (MTA) offered and/or provided

medical care and or treatment to prisoners stabbed or assaulted by other prisoners

while at any courthouse for legal proceedings on February 3, 2004?

Defendant Arong responded, 

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is overbroad, duplicative

and not phrased as a proper interrogatory. Without waiving said objections, to the

extent that plaintiff is asking what the reporting practices or protocols are for

MTA’s who provide medical care or treatment, a Form 7219 must be filled out

documenting any injury or unusual occurrence. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not specifically describe his objection to

defendant Arong’s response to interrogatory no. 12. On its face, the response appears adequate

to the court. Because, for the most part, defendants’ responses appear adequate, the court will

not on its own analyze the adequacy of the responses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 20, 2006,

motion to compel is denied.

DATED: 2/2/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fue675.com

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 122 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2