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

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2557 RRB PAN P

vs.

M. D. MCDONALD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant McDonald acted with deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when, in November 2003, he removed

plaintiff from single cell status and, in May 2004, when he refused to reinstate plaintiff’s single

cell status. Plaintiff also claims that defendant Davey violated plaintiff’s right to due process by

taking his appliances without a hearing and that defendants St. Andre and McDonald participated

in the due process violation by requiring plaintiff to send the property home even though he

could not afford to do so. This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel further

responses to three interrogatories and to a request for production of documents.

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant McDonald to provide further answers to

interrogatories two and three in plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, defendant Davey to provide

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 49 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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

a further answer to interrogatory twelve of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, and defendants

McDonald, Davey and St. Andre to provide responses to several requests in plaintiff’s first

request for production of documents. Defendants oppose the motion.

Interrogatory number two to defendant McDonald asks: “Did the plaintiff meet

the criteria too [sic] single cell housing at the time the plaintiff was placed on single cell status?” 

(Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed February 1, 2006, at 3.) Defendant objected to the

interrogatory on the grounds that it called for an opinion and for speculation. (Id.) In support of

his motion to compel, plaintiff contends that he seeks information that is documented and subject

to specific guidelines and, therefore, that defendant’s objection is not well-taken. 

In opposition to the motion, defendant contends that the information plaintiff

seeks is not relevant to the claim that defendant McDonald improperly revoked his single cell

status. In support of this contention, defendant provides evidence that plaintiff was placed on

single cell status in 1999 while he was housed at Pelican Bay State Prison, that defendant

McDonald was not part of the committee that made the original decision to place plaintiff on

single cell status, that his single cell status was continued after he transferred to High Desert

State Prison in 2000, and that his single cell status was revoked in November 2003 when a

committee, which did include defendant McDonald, determined that plaintiff “did not meet the

criterial per O.P. 502 for continued single cell housing.” (Exs. A, B and C to Defendants’

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed April 7, 2006.) 

Defendant’s contention that the information sought by interrogatory number two

is not relevant to the claims at bar is well-taken. Defendant McDonald will not be required to

provide a further response to interrogatory number two.

Interrogatory number three to defendant McDonald asks: “Is it documented

anywhere in the plaintiff’s c-file that the plaintiff is an ex-gang member.” (Ex. A to Motion to

Compel, at 3.) Defendant’s response to this interrogatory was:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 49 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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

I do not know. Plaintiff is no longer housed at High Desert State

Prison, therefore, his central file is not reasonably available for my

review. Plaintiff may review his file through established

institutional procedures.

(Id.) Defendant McDonald’s response to interrogatory number three is sufficient and no further

response will be required.

Interrogatory number twelve to defendant Davey asks: “Have you ever

confiscated appliances from any other race of inmates for refusing to take a cell mate other than

African Americans” If yes, (A). State the race of inmates other than African Americans.” (Ex. B

to Motion to Compel, at 6.) Defendant objected to this interrogatory on the ground that it was

“not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Id.) On March 22,

2006, defendant Davey served plaintiff with an amended response to the interrogatory stating that

he has used the disciplinary process to confiscate appliances from inmates of all races. (Ex. E to

Defendants’ Opposition.) This part of plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot and will therefore be

denied.

Plaintiff also seeks to compel further responses to requests 1-5, 7, 10 and 11 of his

first request for production of documents. In opposition to the motion, defendants assert that

documents responsive to requests 1-4 and 7 are all available to plaintiff through review of his

central file, and they present evidence that counsel for defendants took affirmative steps to

facilitate plaintiff’s ability to review and obtain copies from his central file. (Ex. F to

Defendants’ Opposition.) No further response to those requests will be required.

By requests 5, 10, and 11, plaintiff seeks “all written complaints and appeals”

brought against defendant McDonald for removing inmates from single cell status between

January 1, 2003 and December 1, 2005, and “all complaints/appeals written and filed by inmates

who’s property was confiscated and ordered sent home pursuant to OP # 606 between 1-1-04

thru 6-1-05 (with deleted names of inmates).” (Ex. B to Motion to Compel, at 4-5.) Defendants

objected to these requests as “overbroad, burdensome, requests document protected by California

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 49 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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

privacy laws, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff contends that documents responsive to these request will lead him to

complaints similar to his made by other inmates, which may provide evidence of “defendants

motives to systematically removing [sic] inmates from single cell status” and/or that defendants

were motivated by monetary, rather than safety, considerations. Plaintiff also contends the

documents may lead him to potential trial witnesses. In opposition to the motion, defendants

contend that complaints of other inmates reveal nothing about the reasons for implementation of

the policies underlying the events complained of herein or defendants’ motives for the actions

challenged herein. Defendants also contend that the requests are burdensome because inmate

appeals are not filed by issue appealed and responsive documents could only be located by a hand

search of all inmate appeal files at High Desert.

This court finds that the documents plaintiff seeks by requests 5, 10, and 11 are

not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims at bar.

No further response to these interrogatories will be required.

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

February 1, 2006 motion to compel is denied. 

DATED: August 16, 2006.

/12; fost2557.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 49 Filed 08/17/06 Page 4 of 4