Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01254/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01254-10/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

 Defendants’ very recently submitted motion for summary judgment will be adjudicated 1

at a later date.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DWANE BROOK, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-1254 GEB GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER 

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed on August 31, 2006, to

which defendants filed their opposition, on September 18, 2006.1

Jurisdiction

As a threshold matter – plaintiff has filed a putative interlocutory appeal of the

dismissal of certain of his claims (and of a defendant in his individual capacity only). Although

“[a]s a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal[,]” Stein v. Wood,127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir.

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 13
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

 In the 9/12/06, Order, plaintiff’s claims of fraud and conspiracy were dismissed, as well 2

as were his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and Cal. Code § 52.1. In addition, defendant

Carey was dismissed as a defendant in his individual capacity with respect to plaintiff’s claim for 

money damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2

1997), the district court retains jurisdiction in this instance because this circuit has long

“recognized an exception to the general rule that a valid notice of appeal divests the district court

of jurisdiction over all but tangential matters,” when the appeal is patently frivolous. Marks v.

Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1018 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105

F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (“frivolous or forfeited appeal does not automatically divest the

district court of jurisdiction.”). See also, U. S. v. Powell, 24 F.3d 28 (9th Cir. 1994); U.S. v.

LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The appeal in this action has not been made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (interlocutory

decisions) and is otherwise without merit. Plaintiff has not appealed from an appealable order

(no final order from which to appeal). Fletcher v. Gagosian, 604 F.2d 637, 638 (9th Cir.1979) (if

a district court dismisses less than all claims in an action or fewer than all defendants, such a

dismissal is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291). A party may appeal “final

decisions of the district courts....” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A ‘final decision’ for purposes of § 1291

is a ‘decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the

court to do but execute the judgment.” Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, et

al., 267 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,

467, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978). 

Second Amended Complaint

This action proceeds on the second amended complaint, filed on July 20, 2005, as

modified by the Order, filed on September 12, 2006, adopting the Findings and

Recommendations, filed on July 12, 2006. Plaintiff proceeds against defendants Warden Carey, 2

Dr. Traquina, Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Cheung and Correctional Officer Cervantes. Plaintiff proceeds

against defendant Carey solely in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief pursuant to

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 13
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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his claims against defendants under the First and

Eighth Amendments and any supplemental state law negligence claim. The court notes here that

as any supplemental state law negligence claim against all defendants remains, the matter

proceeds on this basis as well against defendant Carey. 

On July 22, 2003, plaintiff submitted a medical request form to the dentist’s

office, complaining of pain in his jaw, pain in his teeth near the site of an extraction, an inability

to eat or sleep properly, and expressing concern that the condition would become serious and

inoperable. Second Amended Complaint (SAC), p. 2. On August 5, 2003, plaintiff received

notice from the medical department that his name was being placed on a waiting list. SAC, pp.

2-3 & Exhibit 2 (to SAC). On October 15, 2003, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the

dentist’s office complaining of delay in medical treatment. Id., at 3. On November 15, 2003,

plaintiff filed another medical request form with the dental office, reiterating his request of July

22, 2003. Id. 

On November 17, 2003, plaintiff filed another administrative appeal that

concerned the dental office for delay of medical treatment, which included a request to defendant

Cervantes that he assign a log number to the new appeal, plaintiff’s original not having been

returned, and requesting that the new appeal be processed. Id. & Exhibits 1 and 3. Plaintiff

believes defendant Cervantes read the appeal and attached note and was aware that plaintiff was

claiming a serious medical need which might result in “irreparable damage.” Id. 

On November 19, 2003, defendant Cervantes returned the 11/17/03 appeal to

plaintiff with instructions to send it for informal review directly to the dental clinic. Id. Plaintiff

alleges that “when circumstances are such that regular appeal time limits may” pose a risk to an

inmate’s safety “or cause other serious and irreparable harm, the appeal shall be processed at the

second level and completed within five days.” SAC, p. 4. On November 20, 2003, plaintiff resubmitted his appeal to the appeals coordinator, defendant Cervantes, reminding him that

plaintiff’s earlier attempt for a response at the informal level from the dental clinic had failed,

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 13
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

 California State Prison-Solano in Vacaville. 3

 Chief Medical Officer. 4

4

asking again that the appeal be logged and processed properly, asserting that the appeal

concerned a serious medical condition which delay was making worse, and asking defendant

Cervantes not to prevent him from receiving treatment. Id. & Exhibit 4. 

On November 23, 2003, plaintiff received notice from the dental clinic that his

second request for dental care had been received and that his name was being placed on a waiting

list for dental treatment in chronological order. Id. & Exhibit 2. The following day plaintiff

filed a State Board of Control claim. Id. & Exhibit 5. 

On November 26, 2003, plaintiff’s 11/17/03 appeal was once again returned to

him by defendant Cervantes with the following notation: “Try this, send 602 directly to medical

appeals analyst at primary clinic. Your 602 will be tracked by medical appeals analyst”; plaintiff

did as he was instructed. SAC, pp. 4-5 & Exhibit 6. Plaintiff sent the appeal as instructed on

November 30, 2003. Id., at 5 & Exhibit 7. 

On December 7, 2003, plaintiff sought a copy of a memorandum setting forth the

wait times for medical care at CSP-Solano. Id. Plaintiff obtained a memorandum of medical 3

care waiting periods, dated December 10, 2003, and signed by defendant CMO Traquina. Id., & 4

Exhibit 8. On December 19, 2003, plaintiff’s appeal was partially granted at the informal level

with the result that his name was placed on a waiting list and plaintiff was to be seen in

chronological order. Id. & Exhibit 1. That same day, plaintiff returned the appeal to the medical

appeals analyst for first level review, as defendant Cervantes had instructed that the appeal would

be tracked by the medical appeals analyst. Id. The appeal was returned on December 29, 2003,

with a screening form indicating that plaintiff needed to send it on to the regular inmate appeals

office for a log number, after which that office would forward the appeal to the medical appeals

analyst for first level review; plaintiff did as instructed that same day. SAC, at 5-6 & Exhibit 9. 

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 13
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

5

On January 3, 2004, the appeal was returned to plaintiff with a screening form

indicating that he had to wait seven days before submitting the appeal because he had already

submitted an appeal on December 29th. SAC, at 6 & Exhibit 10. Plaintiff immediately returned

the appeal for processing and complained of the delay. Id. & Exhibit 11. 

On January 6th and 7th, 2004, plaintiff enlisted the help of non-defendant

Housing Officer Walker, to receive attention for his serious dental problem, and Officer Walker

apparently called the dental office on both days. Id. & Exhibit 12. On January 8, 2004, plaintiff

received notice that his 11/17/03 appeal had been given a log number, CSP-S-04-00040, and

would be processed at the first formal level in the medical department. Id. 

On February 3, 2004, not having received any response, plaintiff, threatening to

sue, again sought the assistance of Officer Walker, who called the dentist’s office a third time, at

about 11:30 a.m. SAC, at 7. After the third call, Walker wrote plaintiff a pass for 12:30 p.m.

that same day to the dental clinic for triage. Id. & Exhibit 13. 

Defendant Cheung interviewed and examined plaintiff, on February 3, 2004, and

stated that he was scheduling a dental appointment. Id. Thereafter, on February 6, 2004, plaintiff

was escorted for a dental examination by defendant Cheung, who “took a complete set of x-rays

of plaintiff’s teeth, including the hinge area of the jaw,” told plaintiff that his receding gum line

was due to the many years of tooth brushing and the migration of his teeth on either side of a

tooth extraction site; defendant said there was no other dental problem. Id., at 7-8. Defendant

Cheung conceded that a one-tooth partial or bridge would solve plaintiff’s problems with his

teeth and jaw, but averred that the state would not pay for a bridge. Id., at 8. 

Plaintiff explained that the hinge of his jaw was loose and his jaw muscles were

weak and that the pain in his jaw caused his fear that he was developing cancer or an otherwise

irreparable problem. Id. Defendant Cheung said he would put plaintiff’s name on a waiting list

to see an oral surgeon with whom plaintiff should discuss his jaw problems. Id. Plaintiff asked

defendant Cheung to remove a sharp point in a tooth that kept cutting his tongue; defendant used

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 13
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

 Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction. 5

 Plaintiff’s exhibit indicates that the appeal was returned because it had been granted by 6

the institution and there was nothing to be reviewed.

6

a power tool to smooth away the point. Id. Defendant Cheung ended the appointment with the

advice that rubbing toothpaste on his teeth with his fingers would dull plaintiff’s pain. Id. 

Plaintiff was examined, on February 17, 2004, by an oral surgeon, Dr. Jennings,

not a defendant, who found plaintiff’s teeth and gums to be in good condition with no obvious

problems, but diagnosed plaintiff as having TMJ and prescribed an exercise to cure the problem, 5

telling plaintiff how to do the exercise(s) and when (each morning and evening for ten seconds). 

Id., at 9. When plaintiff asked, Dr. Jennings informed him that doing the prescribed exercises

would have prevented the TMJ. Id. Plaintiff alleges that denial of dental care can lead to loss of

teeth, loss of bone density, deformity, infection and even death. Id. & Exhibit 14. 

Defendant McIntyre, on March 5, 2004, partially granted plaintiff’s 

11/17/03 appeal at the first formal level, stating that plaintiff had been seen by a doctor. Id. &

Exhibit 15. On April 4, 2004, plaintiff submitted a medical request form for dental care. SAC,

at 10. On April 8, 2004, defendant Traquina granted the 11/17/03 appeal in full at the second

formal level, stating that plaintiff’s medical problems were being treated. Id. & Exhibit 16. 

On April 25, 2004, plaintiff filed an appeal, requesting the dental care defendant

Traquina stated that plaintiff was, or was to be, receiving. Id. On May 10, 2004, plaintiff’s 

appeal was returned, informing plaintiff that his name was not on the dental care waiting list. Id.

& Exhibit 17. 

On June 1, 2004, N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals (not a defendant), refused

to review the 11/17/03 appeal at the third or director’s level, which is required by the State Board

of Control. SAC, at 10 & Exhibit 18. On June 11, 2004, plaintiff received acknowledgment of 6

his complaint (about defendant Traquina and his alleged denial of dental care for plaintiff)

having been filed with the state medical board; on June 14, 2004, plaintiff was informed in a

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 13
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 form itself indicates that the request was made on August 3, 2004. 7

 These two incomplete documents, which appear to be the partial declarations of two 8

inmates, other than plaintiff, complaining of the dental care, or lack thereof, they received at

CSP- Solano, must be disregarded/stricken because they are partial, unsigned and lack any

foundation or authentication. 

7

notice from the medical board that his complaint did not come within the board’s jurisdiction,

but that his complaint would be forwarded to Dept. of Corrections Health Care Servs. Div. Id. &

Exhibits 19 and 20. 

On July 1, 2004, plaintiff filed a CDC Form 7362 medical request seeking dental

care; on July 14, 2004, plaintiff received a “dental receipt” for the form. SAC, at 11 & Exhibit

21. On August 13, 2004, plaintiff filed another request for dental care on a CDC Form 7362; on 7

the same day, he was informed that he was already on the waiting list. Id. & Exhibit 22.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Carey was aware of plaintiff’s appeal and Board of

Control claim, thus knowing of his need for medical care and his difficulty in obtaining it, but

failed to act for plaintiff. SAC, at 11. Defendant Carey is, and has been, aware of the medical

department’s unconstitutional policy of denying inmates medical care but fails to rectify it,

despite his power and legal duty to do so. SAC, at 11. Defendant Carey’s failure to prevent a

policy of denial or delay of medical care to plaintiff constituted deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment and his due process

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; in failing to ameliorate the policy, Carey has ratified the

conduct of the other defendants. SAC, at 11-12. Defendant Carey’s failure to prevent the

unconstitutional medical care policy amounted to negligence under state law and violated

plaintiff’s rights under the state constitution. SAC, at 12. Defendant Carey knew his failure to

prevent the policy of denied or delayed medical care violated plaintiff’s state and federal rights

and state and federal laws. SAC, at 12 & Exhibits 23 and 24.8

Plaintiff alleges that all defendants delayed or denied medical care to prisoners. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Cervantes violated state and federal laws by, in essence,

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 7 of 13
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

8

practicing medicine without a license, misdirecting appeals and using his own judgment to assess

the seriousness of plaintiff’s medical condition. SAC, at 13. Defendants Traquina, McIntyre,

Cheung and Cervantes were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical condition in

violation of the Eighth Amendment and of his due process rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment, as well as state law, and were aware of violating plaintiff’s rights. Id. Defendants

violated plaintiff’s rights under the state constitution, and were negligent under state law;

defendants knew that the unconstitutional policy of delayed or denied medical care caused pain

and suffering to plaintiff. SAC, at 14. Defendants knew or should have known that their denied

or delayed medical care could lead to irreparable physical damage to plaintiff; defendants

disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. Id. Defendants relied on untrained

staff to determine the seriousness of plaintiff’s condition. Id. Defendants’ delay in processing

his medical appeals denied his needed medical care. Id., at 14-15. Defendants also retaliated

against him by denying medical care because he filed an appeal against dental staff. SAC, at 16. 

Defendants’ delay in processing his appeals violated his First Amendment right of access to the

courts and his due process rights. Id. Defendant fears further retaliation from the filing of this

lawsuit. SAC, at 17.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as money damages. SAC,

at 19-21.

Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for unspecified sanctions, contending that defendants have not

acted in good faith with respect to producing sick call request sheets (CDC Form 7263) from

January 1, 1998 to the date of his production request, which was on February 5, 2005. Motion

for Sanctions (Mtn.), pp. 1-2. The initial response to plaintiff’s request, on April 7, 2005, was an

objection based on the ground that plaintiff’s medical file was equally available to him for

copying and inspection. Mtn., p. 2; Opposition (Opp.), p. 2. From April 25, 2005, through June

21, 2005, plaintiff and defense counsel corresponded, seeking to resolve the issue informally. 

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 8 of 13
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 also outlines his efforts by way of administrative grievance to be permitted an 9

adequate review of his medical files, so that he could locate the documents he was repeatedly

told were in his files. Mtn., p. 4. Evidently, even when the appeal was granted, plaintiff was not

informed of the time which had supposedly been set for the review. Id. 

9

Mtn., pp. 2-4; Opp., p. 2. Plaintiff explained that he had never been able to find any CDC Form

7263 sick call requests in his medical file; defendants’ counsel responded that the 7263 medical

request form currently is to be placed in an inmate’s medical file, including requests for dental

care. Mtn., pp. 2-3; Opp., p. 2. Counsel, however, also stated that dental care request forms in

the past were not always included in the medical file and that they may not exist any longer,

saying that he would ask the institution to conduct another search to see if they could be located. 

Mtn., p. 3. In response, plaintiff expressed concern that prior medical request forms might have

been removed from his medical file, to which defendants’ counsel responded, saying that the

“sheer number” of requests led to the practice of not keeping such forms beyond the day they

were used as their purpose was basically to reserve a medical or dental appointment. Mtn., p. 3;

Opp., p. 2. Counsel went on to re-assert that the more current practice, as of some unspecified

time in 2005, became to retain the requests in the medical file of an inmate and stated again that

he would ask for another search for the dental request forms to be conducted at the prison. Id. 

As defendants note, on September 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel,9

asking the court to compel defendants to produce, inter alia, his sick call sheets or medical

request forms from January 1, 1998, through the present, to which defendants filed their

opposition, stating that prior sick call sheets were discarded but current sheets were retained in

inmate medical files. Opp., p. 2. By Order, filed on July 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s

motion as to this request, ordering defendants to specify the date upon which the practice of

destroying sick call sheets was discontinued and to provide proof thereof to plaintiff. See Order,

filed on 7/12/06, pp. 22, 31. Moreover, defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff with a copy

of any medical request form submitted by plaintiff on or after July 22, 2003, and to provide the

court with proof of service thereof. Id. Defendants aver that, on August 22, 2006, plaintiff was

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 9 of 13
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

10

provided with the sick call sheets currently in his medical file along with a declaration from a

prison official explaining the past practice with regard to the sick call sheets. Opp., p. 3,

referencing docket entry # 78. 

Defendants’ amended response to the request at issue was:

Defendants do not have any responsive documents from January,

1998, through November 2005, because the institution did not

retain the CDC 7362 forms in the inmate’s respective medical file

until December 2005. Defendants are producing all CDC 7362

forms submitted by plaintiff after November 2005. (See

Attachment A, Declaration of L. Mefford; and, Attachment B,

CDC 7362 forms filed by inmate Brooks after December 2005. 

Mtn., Exhibit (Exh.) B, p. 23.

In the Medford declaration, a Correctional Health Services Administrator at CSPSolano stated, inter alia, the following:

CDC 7263 forms were not kept in the inmate’s medical files until

December 2005. Before this period, the forms were kept in boxes

in a CDCR storage facility. Unfortunately, these forms were

accidentally destroyed in 2005, because the boxes they were in

were mis-marked and labeled to be destroyed. 

Plaintiff complains that he had repeatedly sought the requested documents

through discovery, which requests defendants had repeatedly denied, and that even after the court

ordered production, defendants delayed or denied access to the documents at issue. Mtn., p. 5. 

Plaintiff states that the destroyed documents would have demonstrated “how often and how

desperately the plaintiff had tried to obtain medical care for the pain and suffering he was forced

to endure.” Id. He avers that defendants did not inform the court in their opposition to the

motion to compel that the documents had been destroyed in December of 2005, and that

defendants had ten months to secure the documents, but chose instead to deny they existed and

kept them from plaintiff. Id. 

It is not clear to the court how plaintiff concludes that the documents were

destroyed in December of 2005, the response only indicates that the sick call forms were not kept

on the individual inmate medical files until December, 2005. Moreover, the response to the

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 10 of 13
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

11

motion to compel was filed on November 18, 2005, and defendants could not have made any

representation as to what occurred at a date that at that point had not yet been reached. 

Defendants’ counsel recounts a somewhat murky history of the practice of the

prison with respect to sick call request forms. Apparently, the institution informed defense

counsel that prior to 2005, the forms were not retained at all once submitted. At some undefined

time in 2005, and for some unspecified reason, the practice changed and the prison began to

retain the sick call request forms in a storage facility. Opp., p. 2. Thereafter, the forms which

had begun to be stored only some time in 2005 were inadvertently destroyed or discarded

because they were in boxes that were mis-marked and labeled for destruction. Id. Finally, in a

third change of practice, in December, 2005, the medical request forms began to be placed

directly into inmate medical files. Id. 

Taken at their word then, there was no practice of maintaining records of any of

plaintiff’s sick call requests, or those of any other CSP-Solano inmate, prior to 2005, and as to

the ones that were begun to be stored as of some time in 2005, they were destroyed by mistake. 

Defendants contend that they had no duty to maintain medical files and no involvement in the

prison’s practice of discarding the medical request forms. Opp., p. 3. While the court

understands plaintiff’s frustration, and the explanation for the variable, vague and ever-changing

custom of the prison with regard to these requests is less than entirely satisfactory, there is no

substantial evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendants on their counsel. Moreover, prison

officials are entitled to leeway in the manner of prison administration; they should not be

unnecessarily hamstrung by courts in the decisions they make with regard to prison recordkeeping generally. “[F]ederal courts must remember that the duty to protect inmates’

constitutional rights does not confer the power to manage prisons or the capacity to second-guess

prison administrators, for which we are ill-equipped.” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1290 (9th

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 11 of 13
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 Misspelled in Bruce as “Touissant.” 10

12

Cir. 2003), quoting Toussaint v. McCarthy (Toussaint IV), 801 F.2d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.1986): 10

“[T]he relief ordered by federal courts must be consistent with the policy of minimum intrusion

into the affairs of state prison administration....” Toussaint, supra, at 1086 (emphasis added in

Bruce, supra, at 1290. 

Plaintiff is not clear as to what form he would like any sanctions to take. While

defendants did not act in evident bad faith, it does appear that they could have discovered or

disclosed in a more timely fashion that the request forms sought had been destroyed. It is less

clear whether defendants could or should haven taken steps to secure the forms prior to their

being discarded. Given that “[f]ederal courts should not, in the name of the Constitution,

become enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations,” Toussaint, supra, 801 F.2d at 1086,

there is an insufficient basis for the court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), to impose

sanctions upon the defendants in this instance. However, in the pending motion for summary

judgment, defendants will not be permitted to set forth as an undisputed fact that plaintiff did not

submit sick call request forms in the period up to December 2005, related to his need for dental

care, should they have sought to do so. Moreover, the court will accept plaintiff’s testimony that

he made multiple requests for dental treatment during the period from July 2003 until December

2005, the time during which defendants concede the prison either did not maintain records of

request forms or for which the records of request forms have been destroyed, should plaintiff

raise the issue in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. To the extent that the issue

of repeated sick requests for which there is no record may be material, it may become a disputed

issue of fact. However, plaintiff’s motion for unspecified sanctions must be denied at this time.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 12 of 13
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

13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 31, 2006, motion for

sanctions is denied without prejudice.

DATED: 3/23/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

broo1254.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 94 Filed 03/23/07 Page 13 of 13