Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00520-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral Adams
Defendant
Aasim Nia
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

AASIM NIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Defendant.

 /

1:08-CV-00520-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW (DOC NO. 34) AND

DISREGARDING SECOND MOTION TO

COMPEL (DOC NO. 30)

ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO

COMPEL (DOC NO. 35)

I. Background

Plaintiff Aasim Nia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed April 16, 2008, against Defendant Derral Adams for violation of the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 1

second motion to compel, filed April 8, 2010, and Plaintiff’s third motion to compel, filed June

21, 2010 . (Pl.’s Second Mot. Compel, DOC. No.30; Pl.’s Third Mot. Compel, DOC No. 35.)

The Court addresses each in turn.

II. Second Motion To Compel

Defendant filed an opposition to the second motion to compel on April 29, 2010. (Def.’s

Opp’n, DOC No. 32.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s second motion to compel repeats the

Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, Defendant Adams as warden

1

treated Plaintiff, an African American, differently from Hispanic inmates. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 2-16.) Plaintiff alleges

that he is not affiliated with any prison gang, but his cell mate is allegedly affiliated with the Crips. Plaintiff alleges

that when Crips are placed on lockdown status, their cell mates are also placed on lockdown status, regardless of

affiliation, which does not occur with Hispanic inmates. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied visiting privileges

simply because he was housed with a cell mate assumed to be a Crip.

1

Case 1:08-cv-00520-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 08/03/10 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

same request raised in Plaintiff’s first motion to compel, which was resolved by a separate order.

On May 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the second motion to compel. 

(Pl.’s Mot. Withdraw, DOC No. 34.) Plaintiff contends that he filed the second motion to

compel to preserve his discovery request. (Pl.’s Mot. 1:24-2:1.) That motion is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw, filed May 17, 2010,

is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s second motion to compel, filed April 8, 2010, is DISREGARDED.

III. Third Motion To Compel

Plaintiff filed his third motion to compel on June 21, 2010. (Pl.’s Third Mot. Compel

(hereinafter “Mot. Compel”), DOC No. 35.) Defendant filed an opposition on July 12, 2010. 

(Def.’s Opp’n, DOC No. 36.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely, because it was filed

more than six weeks after Defendant served Plaintiff with his responses. (Def.’s Opp’n 2:15-19.)

However, Plaintiff in his motion withdrawing his second motion to compel also requested leave

to file a motion to compel further response after receiving Defendant’s responses. (Pl.’s Mot.

2:7-22, filed May 17, 2010, DOC No. 34.) Thus, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to

file a motion to compel was made in a timely manner. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding

pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a third motion to compel.

A. Request For Production No. 1

Pl.’s Request: The plaintiff would like documentation of the visiting schedule for facility

3A yard for the year of 2007 through 2008 (i.e. how the visiting was

operated, what groups of inmates was allow to use the visiting room at

what time. By what group, I want to know what racial groups, gang

groups, etc., were allow to use the visiting room at what time, and who

they couldn’t use the visiting room with).

Def.’s Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is over broad,

burdensome, and not rationally calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Without waiving the objections, Attachment 1, the

Program Status Reports indicate whether there were any restrictions on

normal visiting operations.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has a document which contains inmate housing by cell

number, racial group, and disruptive group. (Pl.’s Mot. Compel 3:7-23.) Defendant contends

that he responded to Plaintiff’s request by producing the Program Status Reports, which indicate

2

Case 1:08-cv-00520-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 08/03/10 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

if there was any modification of normal visiting procedures. (Def.’s Opp’n 5:23-25.0 Plaintiff

raises the same arguments from his first motion to compel, which the Court has previously

addressed. Defendant has responded to Plaintiff’s request by producing Program Status Reports

for the time period in question. Absent a showing that other documents actually exist which are

responsive to Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For

Production No. 1 is denied.

B. Request For Production No. 2

Pl.’s Request: The plaintiff Aasim Nia would like the defendant Derral Adams to

produce documentation of how the visiting room was to be operated at

Corcoran State Prison on Facility 3A yard between January 2005 thru

January of 2008. This document the plaintiff is requesting is the same

document as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15

section 3171.

Def.’s Response: See, Attachment 1.

Plaintiff contends that the documents he received are not the correct documents. (Pl.’s

Mot. Compel 4:4-19.) Defendant responded by producing Program Status Reports for Plaintiff

indicating how normal visiting was modified in response to inmate violence. (Def.’s Opp’n

6:18-8:2; Ex. C, Program Status Reports). Again, this request was previously raised in Plaintiff’s

first motion to compel. Absent a showing that other documents actually exist which are

responsive to Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For

Production No. 2 is denied.

IV. Conclusion And Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw, filed May 17, 2010 is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s second motion to compel, filed April 8, 2010, is DISREGARDED; and 

3. Plaintiff’s third motion to compel, filed June 21, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00520-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3