Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00653-6/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

REX CHAPPEL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0653 GEB KJM P

vs.

R. MANDEVILLE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are before the court.

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2006 Motion To Compel

On May 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel concerning his request for

production of documents. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion, his points and authorities

and the declaration attached to the motion. Plaintiff concedes that defendants did respond to his

requests, although not as quickly as he would have liked. Plaintiff fails to point to any specific

response the court should order defendants to supplement. Plaintiff merely complains in general

terms about the fact that defendants did not turn over any documents quickly in response to

plaintiff’s request to produce, and about matters that may or may not be related to defendants’

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00653-GEB -KJM Document 72 Filed 03/29/07 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

 Plaintiff is informed that the appropriate manner in which to seek an order compelling a 1

defendant to provide a further response to a request to produce is as follows: 1) identify the

request at issue; (2) identify the response at issue; and 3) provide argument as to why the

particular response is inadequate. General accusations regarding a lack of compliance with

discovery procedures are normally not enough to warrant an order compelling discovery and the

court will not parse though pages of irrelevant material in order to seek out some buried

legitimate argument in favor of compelling discovery. 

2

responses. In any case, plaintiff has failed to show that an order compelling defendants to

respond further to any particular document request is appropriate. This motion will be denied. 1

In his declaration, plaintiff suggests that defendants should be sanctioned because

plaintiff did not receive defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s request to produce until May 8, 2006. 

Decl. of R. Chappel at 5:19-25. Plaintiff also asserts defendants mailed their responses to

plaintiff on May 3, 2006. Id. In this court’s April 4, 2006 order, defendants were ordered to

serve their response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents by May 3, 2006. 

Therefore, there is no cause for sanctions.

2. Defendants’ May 25, 2006 Request To Extend Date To Depose Plaintiff

Defendants sought an extension of time to depose plaintiff after the discovery

cutoff. Good cause appearing, defendants’ request will be granted retroactively to the cutoff. If

they have not already done so, defendants will be given thirty days within which to take

plaintiff’s deposition. If the documents and/or privilege log mentioned in defendants’ request

have not yet been provided to plaintiff, they shall be provided prior to deposition. Based on this

granting of the extension request, defendants’ July 12, 2006 motion to compel plaintiff to be

deposed will be denied as unnecessary. Any renewed motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition

must be made within thirty-five days of this order. 

3. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 Request For “Service Of Documents”

Plaintiff asks that the court order the U.S. Marshal to serve subpoenas upon four

persons. Two of the persons are defendants. Plaintiff has not shown why he could not obtain the

information he seeks from defendants through the proper use of requests to produce,

Case 2:03-cv-00653-GEB -KJM Document 72 Filed 03/29/07 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

 The court notes that plaintiff has already filed his pretrial statement. If this case 2

survives a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, plaintiff will be given the

opportunity to file an amended pretrial statement.

3

interrogatories or other forms of discovery designed for use between parties, or motions to

compel following the service of properly propounded discovery. Therefore, the court will not

order the Marshal to serve subpoenas on defendants Mandeville and Rosario. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted with respect to the subpoenas for the Warden of

California State Prison Sacramento and Carol Mantano. The court will direct the Clerk of the

Court to issue two new subpoenas, and send them to plaintiff. Plaintiff shall fill out the

subpoenas and then return them to the court within thirty days. 

4. Scheduling Order

Defendants request an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. 

Good cause appearing, the court will grant defendants ninety days within which to file their

motion. If defendants do not file a motion for summary judgment within ninety days, the court

will set new deadlines for the filing of pretrial statements and then set a trial date. In light of the 2

court’s ruling and the current posture of this case, defendants’ November 1, 2006 motion to

vacate will be denied as unnecessary.

5. Plaintiff’s October 13, 2006 Request For Recusal

Plaintiff asks that the undersigned recuse. However, plaintiff has not shown any

cause for recusal and the undersigned is not aware of any reason why recusal is required or

appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. This request will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2006 motion to compel is denied.

2. Defendants’ May 25 2006 request for an extension of time to depose plaintiff

is granted nunc pro tunc, subject to defendants’ advance provision of the documents and/or

privilege log described in their request. Defendants are granted thirty days within which to

Case 2:03-cv-00653-GEB -KJM Document 72 Filed 03/29/07 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

4

depose plaintiff, if they have not already done so. Any renewed motion to compel plaintiff’s

deposition must be made within thirty-five days of this order. 

3. Defendants’ July 12, 2006 motion to compel is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 request for “service of documents” is granted in part

and denied in part as follows:

A. Denied as to the subpoenas requested for defendants Mandeville and

Rosario.

B. Granted as to the subpoenas requested for the Warden of California

State Prison Sacramento and Carol Mantano. The Clerk of the Court shall

issue two subpoenas and forward them to plaintiff. Plaintiff shall fill out

the subpoenas and return them to the court within twenty days of this

order.

5. Defendants’ July 24, 2006 request for an extension of time to file a motion for

summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment within

ninety days of this order.

6. Defendants’ November 1, 2006 motion to vacate is denied.

7. Plaintiff’s October 13, 2006 request that the undersigned recuse is denied.

DATED: March 28, 2007.

 

1

chap0653.abs

Case 2:03-cv-00653-GEB -KJM Document 72 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 4