Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02788/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02788-8/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

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2788 FCD EFB P

vs.

VOKUFKA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are several discovery-related motions filed by

plaintiff. 

Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Court Order for Depositions of Parties” on February 18,

2010. Dckt. No. 20. In this document, plaintiff requested that the Court issue an order

designating the time and place for depositions of defendant Vokufka as well as non-parties M.

Larson, Coleman, and J. Foster. Plaintiff attached questions to be asked of each prospective

deponent. However, plaintiff later realized that the “Petition” was not proper under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and accordingly submitted a “Motion for Court Order to Compel

Interrogatories” on April 7, 2010, asking the Court to compel defendant Vokufka and the nonparties to respond to the questions attached to the “Petition” as interrogatories. Dckt. No. 26.

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 7
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

 All further references to “Rules” refer to rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

2

Defendant submitted an opposition to the “Petition” and “Motion for Court Order to

Compel Interrogatories” on April 28, 2010. In his opposition, defendant argues that plaintiff’s

requests must be denied for several reasons. First, plaintiff did not meet and confer with

defendant regarding the interrogatories or include a meet and confer certification as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1).1

 Because plaintiff did not meet and confer, defendant

had no way of knowing that plaintiff intended the “Petition,” which was addressed to the Court,

as interrogatories addressed to defendant and the non-parties. Second, the “Petition” was

defective as a deposition notice under Rule 30. Third, the cut-off date for discovery under Rules

31 (depositions), 33 (interrogatories), 34 (requests for production), and 36 (requests for

admission) was February 16, 2010 (see January 20, 2010 Discovery and Scheduling Order, Dckt.

No. 18), so interrogatories at this point are not timely. Fourth, plaintiff submitted 30 questions

for defendant to answer without obtaining leave of court to propound in excess of 25

interrogatories under Rule 33(a)(1). Lastly, defendant points to a number of defects regarding

plaintiff’s attempt to question the non-parties (who have not been served with a subpoena or

given notice of plaintiff’s motions). 

Plaintiff, in his reply to defendant’s opposition, concedes that he failed to meet and

confer regarding the questions/interrogatories at issue in Docket Nos. 20 and 26 and that the

“Petition” was defective as a deposition notice. He further concedes that he failed to follow the

proper procedure to question non-parties M. Larson, Coleman, and J. Foster, and accordingly

withdraws his motion to compel as to those non-parties. Plaintiff states that he is inexperienced

and pro se and thus misunderstood the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He

accordingly asks the Court for leave to propound 30 interrogatories and to require defendant to

answer them. 

////

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 7
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

Because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable rules, the court cannot grant

his motion to compel defendant’s response to the questions, now designated interrogatories by

plaintiff. Although plaintiff is pro se, he is required to read and comply with the Local Rules,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s orders. See McNeil v. United States, 508

U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil

litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Petition” (Dckt. No. 20) and “Motion for Court Order to Compel

Interrogatories” (Dckt. No. 26) are denied. Keeping plaintiff’s pro se status in mind, however,

the court hereby grants the parties an additional 60 days to complete discovery. The court

further grants plaintiff leave to propound 30 interrogatories. Plaintiff may submit the

interrogatories to defendant in compliance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Local Rules of this Court. The court admonishes plaintiff that it will not entertain any

further requests to extend the discovery deadline and will not consider any motions to compel

beyond that deadline.

 Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Order to Compel Discovery” (Dckt. No. 21). By

this motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant and defendant’s employer, the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), to provide various

discovery. Plaintiff states that he submitted two requests for the information to defendant. In the

first request, plaintiff asked defendant for the addresses of two potential witnesses. Plaintiff

dated the request February 15, 2010, which was before the cut-off for written discovery, but the

proof of service is dated February 20, 2010, after the cut-off. Defendant responded that it would

not answer the discovery because it was not timely. In the second request, plaintiff asked for

various documents. Defendant substantively answered some of plaintiff’s requests, attaching

responsive documents, but indicated that he had no responsive documents to the remaining

requests. 

////

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 7
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

As to the first discovery request, plaintiff states that he attempted to timely serve it but

that he “has no control of processing of mail by CMF prison.” The court will deny plaintiff’s

motion to compel responses due to the untimeliness of the request. However, because it appears

that plaintiff attempted to timely serve the discovery and missed the deadline by only a few days,

the court will allow plaintiff to resubmit to defendant the two interrogatories regarding the

addresses of potential witnesses Dave Beck and Bernard Taylor. Accordingly, plaintiff is

granted leave to propound 32 interrogatories on defendant within 60 days from the date of this

order – the 30 interrogatories previously submitted to the Court in plaintiff’s “Petition” and the

two interrogatories regarding Beck and Taylor.

As to the second discovery request, plaintiff’s request for documents, defendant has

complied. Although defendant did not produce much of what was requested, there is no

indication that the documents not produced are within defendant’s possession, custody, or

control. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to respond to the request for

documents dated February 7, 2010 and served February 13, 2010 is denied.

Plaintiff also sought information from CDCR through a California Public Records Act

(“PRA”) request. CDCR, through its PRA Coordinator B.C. Williams, denied the request with

citation to California Government Code section 6254, which provides numerous exemptions to

public disclosure. CDCR did not indicate which exemption was claimed. Plaintiff now seeks an

order to compel CDCR’s response under the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). As

there is no indication that plaintiff has submitted a request under FOIA to CDCR for the

information, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel CDCR, and its PRA Coordinator

Mr. Williams, to provide the information under FOIA (Dckt. No. 21).

Relatedly, plaintiff seeks two subpoenas – one for CDCR and one for Mr. Williams – for

the “previously requested” information. Dckt. Nos. 30 & 32. Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas

does not specify what precise information is sought via subpoena; apparently plaintiff seeks the

information previously requested under the PRA, but plaintiff has not provided a copy of the

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 7
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

 Plaintiff seeks the following:

(1) The name of the African-American female CDCR employee partnered with M.

Vokufka on the N-Tower Exercise yard on April 4, 2007, Second Watch.

(2) The addresses of potential witnesses and former prison Inmates and the name and

addresses of their Parole Agents should they be on parole or the facility of their

imprisonment should they be incarcerated:

(a) Inmate Dave Peck, CDC ID No. F-08920.

(b) Inmate Bernard Taylor, CDC ID No. F-15239.

(3) Documents and/or Records of the investigation and/or results of the investigation

of plaintiff’s 602 staff complaint appeal against defendant, M. Vokufka, C/O,

conducted by J. Foster, Correctional Lieutenant. Institutional Log No. CMF-M-07-

01295 and returned to plaintiff on or about June 30, 2007. With emphasis on the

following:

(a) The CDCR document known as: Confidential Supplement to Appeal,

Appeal Inquiry (Attachment “C”) of 602 Staff Complaint Appeal Log No. CMF-M07-01295.

(b) A Record of the interview or attempted interview of the following staff

members concerning 602 Appeal Log No. CMF-M-07-01295:

(I) Mr. Larson, Correctional Officer, Post-N-2 Wing on April 4-5,

2007.

(ii) Mr. Coleman, Correctional Officer, Post-N-2 Wing on April 4-5,

2007.

(iii) Mr. Demarrs, Correctional Sergeant, N-2 Tower on April 4, 2007.

(iv) Dr. Bloehm, Psychologist, N-2 Wing April 4-5, 2007.

(4) Documents or Records of any and all interviews with the defendant M. Vokufka,

C/O, concerning the allegations against him contained in plaintiff’s CDC 602 Staff

Complaint appeal, Log No. Log No. CMF-M-07-01295.

(5) Documents or Records of interviews or attempts to interview the following

5

PRA request itself. However, in his motion to compel CDCR and Mr. Williams (Dckt. No. 21),

plaintiff describes the information he has sought from defendant and the CDCR through his

various discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court presumes that the requests listed in Docket

No. 21 encompass the information sought from CDCR.2

 The requested information appears to

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 7
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

Inmates as eye-witnesses to the events of April 4-5, 2007:

(a) Dave Beck, CDCR ID No. F-08920.

(b) Bernard Taylor, CDCR ID No. F-15239.

(c) Kellums, CDCR ID No. V-48858.

(d) Bradley Parrish, CDCR ID No. unknown.

(e) Plaintiff Thomas J. Heilman, CDCR ID No. H-76785.

(6) Documents, Records and the Report of the investigation of the fist-fight

altercation occurring between Inmate Kellums, ID No. V-48858 and Bradley Parrish,

ID No. unknown. The actual 115 or 128-A or 128-B disciplinary reports or

informative chronos documenting the altercation on April 4, 2007 on the N-Tower

Exercise Yard and the identities of the Reporting Employee and other correctional

staff who intervened in the altercation.

(7) The Record or Document showing whether Plaintiff’s 602 Staff Complaint appeal

was investigated as a staff complaint and statistically categorized as a staff complaint

appeal, Log No. Log No. CMF-M-07-01295.

(8) The Documents or Records of: (a) the Post Orders, (b) Job Description, (c) Duties

and Responsibilities, (d) Hours worked on April 4, 2007, of the defendant M.

Vokufka, C/O, and those of the correctional staff partnered with C/O Vokufka on

April 4, 2007 while supervising the N-Tower Exercise Yard.

(9) The specific CMF-Vacaville General Orders pertaining to the defendant’s duties

and responsibilities while supervising inmates.

(10) The documents or Records of any or all CDCR Rules or Regulations or CMFVacaville General Orders pertaining to the restriction of wearing headphones on the

EOP Exercise yard or other General Population Exercise Yards on the date of April

4, 2007.

Dckt. No. 21 at 2-5.

6

be proper subjects of discovery in the instant matter, but Mr. Williams is not a party to the

litigation and his position as PRA Coordinator for CDCR does not indicate that he possesses or

controls the information requested by plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will issue one subpoena

for the information sought by plaintiff. Plaintiff must complete the subpoena before serving it on

CDCR or the California Medical Facility - Vacaville in accordance with Rule 45.

////

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 18, 2010 “Petition for Court Order for Depositions of Parties”

(Dckt. No. 20) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2010 “Motion for Court Order to Compel Interrogatories” (Dckt.

No. 26) is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s March 17, 2010 “Motion for Order to Compel Discovery” (Dckt. No. 21) is

denied.

4. Discovery is reopened for an additional 60 days from the date of this order for the

limited purpose of allowing plaintiff to propound on defendant the 30 interrogatories previously

attached to his “Petition for Court Order for Depositions of Parties” (Dckt. No. 20) and the 2

interrogatories previously served on February 20, 2010. The Court grants plaintiff leave to

propound seven interrogatories in excess of the 25 provided for by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 33(a)(1).

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank,

to plaintiff in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

DATED: July 26, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 07/26/10 Page 7 of 7