Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00173-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

 Plaintiff included in his motion a request for reconsideration of this court’s March 23,

2006 order. This request is a matter for the district court and will probably be addressed by the

district court by separate order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE L. AARON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0173 LKK PAN P

vs.

DICKINSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to certain

requests for admissions contained in three separate sets of requests.1 Plaintiff filed each set of

requests for admissions, followed by three separate sets of responses. The responses to the

requests for admissions do not contain the requests. As noted in this court’s prior order,

“[r]esponses to requests for admissions shall set forth each request in full before each response.” 

Local Rule 36-250.” (March 23, 2006 Order at 2; Docket No. 69.) Thus, defendants’ responses

do not conform to the Local Rules. Plaintiff has set forth the disputed requests at pages 6 - 13 of

his April 19, 2006 motion. (Docket No. 74.)

Case 2:05-cv-00173-LKK -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/27/06 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

2

Accordingly, defendants will be directed to properly respond to the requests at

issue within ten days or the disputed requests for admissions will be deemed admitted. Plaintiff’s

motion to compel will be denied without prejudice to its renewal once proper responses have

been provided. Plaintiff is reminded that once proper responses are provided, he need only file

the specific disputed request and response. (Local Rule 36-250.) He need not file a complete

copy of his requests or the responses. (Id.)

On April 19, 2006, plaintiff also filed a motion for subpoenas pertaining to two

items. First, plaintiff contends he has sought a copy of one page from the Unit Entry log book

“CDC 114" for the administrative segregation unit at High Desert State Prison for August 2,

2003 around 1:30 p.m. from defendant Abamonga. Plaintiff alleges defendant Abamonga

refused. This matter is more appropriately raised in a motion to compel production of the

document plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the specific request he posed to

defendant Abamonga, nor a copy of defendant Abamonga’s response. Plaintiff’s motion for a

subpoena for this document will be denied without prejudice to its proper renewal as a motion to

compel production of the document.

Second, plaintiff seeks a photograph of the door leading to the administrative

segregation exercise yard. Plaintiff again contends he sought this from defendants in his request

for production of documents, set #1. This matter is more appropriately raised in a motion to

compel production of the photograph defendant seeks. Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the

specific request he posed nor a copy of defendants’ denial. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena for

this photograph will be denied without prejudice to its proper renewal as a motion to compel

production of the photograph. However, plaintiff is cautioned that if defendants’ response was

that no photograph exists, that response is sufficient. Defendants are not required to produce

evidence or photographs in response to discovery requests; they are only obligated to produce

those relevant items within their possession or control.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00173-LKK -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/27/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days from the date of this order, defendants shall properly respond

to the disputed requests for admissions. 

2. Plaintiff’s April 19, 2006 motion to compel is denied without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff’s April 19, 2006 motion for subpoenas is denied.

DATED: April 26, 2006.

/mp:001

aaro0173.mtc2

Case 2:05-cv-00173-LKK -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3