Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916-13/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE POLANCO DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIA TORCEDO,

Defendant.

No. 21-cv-0916 KJM CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. This action proceeds 

on plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleging that while he was housed at California State 

Prison, Sacramento, on December 21, 2020, plaintiff was subjected to retaliation by defendant 

Torcedo. Plaintiff recently filed a request and a motion. As discussed below, plaintiff’s request 

is disregarded, and his motion is denied.

Request for Production

On March 27, 2024, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Request for Production of 

Documents . . . .” (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for 

discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that 

party’s responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response 

and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery 

requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue.

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 50 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 3
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

Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff also filed a document styled, “Motion to Dismiss for Defective Process,” citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4). (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff “moves to dismiss the defense initial requests 

for production of documents and interrogatories, and post summary judgment strategy which

violates due process under Rule 12(b)(4.)” (ECF No. 45 at 1.) He claims defendant “failed to 

serve summons interrogatory and request for documentary evidence” purportedly in violation of 

Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and claims Torcedo’s affidavit appended a 

copy of the allegedly defective summons served on plaintiff and improperly affiliated plaintiff 

with Devonte B. Harris. (ECF No. 45 at 1.) Plaintiff appears to claim that defendant failed to 

provide plaintiff with Rule 34(b) notice, and also claims that if the request was under Rule 

26(d)(2) and was delivered within 30 days after the parties’ first conference under Rule 26(f), 

counsel failed to serve plaintiff. Plaintiff then claims the failure to file a motion to dismiss 

waived this court’s lack of personal jurisdiction, resulting from the defective summons. Plaintiff 

seeks, inter alia, an order granting his motion, letting the summons proceed, and denying

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 45 at 3.) Plaintiff also appends an 

affidavit in which he opposes defendant’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 45-1.)

Discussion 

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is unclear. First, there are no summons pending in this 

action.1 Rather, service of process is complete. A discovery and scheduling order issued on 

February 7, 2024; such order granted the parties leave to conduct discovery in this matter. (ECF 

No. 42.) Thus, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to object under Rule 26, such objection is 

overruled. Second, defendant has not filed a motion for summary judgment in this action. 

Perhaps plaintiff has confused this action with another case. Third, defendant was not required to 

serve summons along with discovery requests. Fourth, as discussed above, plaintiff’s objections 

to defendant’s discovery requests must be served on counsel for defendant, not the court. 

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for “defective process” is not well-taken and is denied. 

1

 Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the allegedly defective summons. In any event, Devonte B. 

Harris is not a party to this action, and any reference to him is unclear.

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 50 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Finally, plaintiff failed to properly serve counsel for defendant with either of the above 

filings. Plaintiff’s proof of service by mail is addressed to “Department of Justice, Office of the 

Attorney General, 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 99102-7004. (ECF 

No. 46 at 6.) However, defendant Torcedo’s answer reflects that he is represented by Chase 

Goldstein, Deputy Attorney General, 300 South Spring St., Suite 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013-

1230. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff is required to serve all court filings on counsel for defendant at 

counsel’s address of record. L.R. 135(f). Because plaintiff failed to properly serve his discovery 

requests and responses, plaintiff is granted fourteen days to properly serve his discovery requests 

and discovery responses on counsel for defendant. 

The parties are encouraged to cooperate in discovery. Failure to cooperate in discovery 

may result in the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (sanctions may be imposed for failure to 

comply with a discovery order); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3) (sanctions may be imposed for failure to 

serve answers to interrogatories or to respond to request for production of documents).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for production of documents (ECF No. 46) and affidavit opposing 

defendant’s discovery requests (ECF No. 45-1) are retained in the court file but disregarded. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing with the court of discovery requests or responses, except 

as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) is denied.

3. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to re-serve his discovery 

requests and responses on counsel for defendant: Chase Goldstein, Deputy Attorney General, 300 

South Spring St., Suite 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230. 

Dated: April 10, 2024

/1/diaz0916.411

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 50 Filed 04/11/24 Page 3 of 3