Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01736/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01736-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA M. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01736-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 40)

Plaintiff Desha M. Carter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2007. On November 2, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce photographs of the E-1 Ad Seg Unit and

facilitate his ability to depose ten inmate witnesses by written questions. Defendants filed an

opposition on November 18, 2009. 

Plaintiff did not provide the Court with a copy of the discovery requests or Defendants’

responses, so the Court is limited to the bare motion before it and Defendants’ opposition. 

Defendants represent that Plaintiff requested photographs on May 14, 2009, and they responded that

they do not have anysuch photographs. Defendants note that it is not clear whether Plaintiff believes

they have the photographs and are not producing them, or whether he believes they are required to

take the photographs and then produce them. Defendants state that the photographs do not exist to

their knowledge and that they are not obligated to create the photographs for Plaintiff.

Defendants are correct. Defendants informed Plaintiff that they do not have possession of

the photographs he seeks. Plaintiff is required to accept that response, absent the submission of

1

Case 1:07-cv-01736-JLT Document 53 Filed 01/25/10 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

evidence showing the response to be untruthful, which has not occurred. Further, Defendants are

under no obligation to take photographs for Plaintiff or otherwise create evidence for him. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the photographs is denied.

Plaintiff also wishes to depose ten inmate witnesses and seeks an orderrequiring Defendants

to assist him or otherwise facilitate the depositions. Defendants do not have a duty to facilitate the

depositions of Plaintiff’s witnesses for Plaintiff. 

A deposition by written questions must be conducted in compliance with Rule 31 of the

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Depositions by written questions entail more than mailing

questions to the deponents and awaiting their written responses. Leave of court must be obtained,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2)(B), and Plaintiff must have the financial ability to retain (compensate) an

officer to take responses and prepare the record, Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). Plaintiff is proceeding in

forma pauperis and has made no showing that he has the funds available to retain an officer to

conduct the deposition by written questions. As previously stated, Defendants have no legal duty

to bear the costs or otherwise assist Plaintiff in deposing witnesses, and Plaintiff’s motion for an

order compelling them to do so is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed November 2, 2009, is HEREBY

DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01736-JLT Document 53 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2