(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al
Filing
132
ORDER Denying Plaintff's Motions To Compel As Moot (Docs 119 , 121 , 125 ), ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum As Untimely (Doc. 120 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/3/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
GARRISON S. JOHNSON,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00640-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO COMPEL AS MOOT (DOCS. 119, 121,
125)
v.
JOHN DOVEY, et al.,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS
UNTIMELY (DOC. 120)
Defendants.
/
13
14
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
15
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
17
against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, G.
18
Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions of
19
confinement, and retaliation. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel
20
verifications to answers to second set of interrogatories, filed March 11, 2011; 2) Plaintiff’s
21
motion for subpoena duces tecum, filed March 11, 2011; 3) Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers
22
to interrogatories, filed March 11, 2011; and 4) Plaintiff’s motion to compel verifications to
23
answers to first set of interrogatories, filed March 29, 2011. Defendants filed an opposition to
24
the motions to compel on April 21, 2011. Doc. 126. Plaintiff did not file a timely reply. The
25
matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
26
I.
27
28
Motions To Compel
Plaintiff moves for Defendants to provide the verification to the answers to Plaintiff’s
first and second set of interrogatories as to Defendants V. Ybarra, Powell, Velasquez, and
1
1
Medrano. Plaintiff also moved for further response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and
2
15, served on Defendant Powell.
3
Defendants contend that as of April 21, 2011, Defendant Powell has provided amended
4
responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 15. Defendants have also provided signed
5
verifications for Defendants V. Ybarra, Powell, Velasquez, and Medrano.
6
It appears that based on Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are moot.
7
Absent a showing to the contrary, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.
8
II.
9
10
11
Subpoena Duces Tecum
Plaintiff moves for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to be served on CDCR
Secretary Matthew Cate or his designee. Plaintiff seeks the following:
1.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies, procedures and
electronically stored information that relates to when a nurse or medical personnel
are to refer an inmate to a doctor when the inmate compains [sic] of injuries.
2.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies, procedures and
electronically stored information in your possession and control that relates to a
nurse or medical personnel not being required to refer an inmate to a doctor when
the inmate complain [sic] of injuries if no sign of injuries are [sic] seen.
3.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies and procedures and
electronically stored information in your possession and control that describes
how medical personnel and staff are to decontaminate inmates who have been
pepper sprayed in the eyes.
4.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies and procedures and
electronically stored information in your possession and control that informs Staff
and medical personnel when to refer an inmate to a doctor resulting from being
pepper sprayed in the eyes.
5.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies and procedures and
electronically stored information in your possession and control that relates to the
date defedant [sic] K. Powell was employed as a nurse by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
6.
Any and all logs, documents, rules, regulations, policies, procedures and
electronically stored information in your possession of [sic] control that relates to
the name and year of each CDCR/prison/institution Dfendant [sic] K. Powell
worked at.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
As to requests Nos. 5 and 6, these are related to interrogatories served on Defendant K. Powell,
27
to which Defendant K. Powell did not answer. Defendants contend that they have since provided
28
amended responses. Thus, requests Nos. 5 and 6 are moot.
2
1
Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum is also untimely. The original discovery cut-
2
off date was July 5, 2010. See Discovery and Scheduling Order, Doc. 40. The cut-off date was
3
subsequently extended to September 20, 2010. See Order, filed July 30, 2010, Doc. 81.
4
Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum concerns discovery, and was filed well after the cut-
5
off date.
6
Plaintiff contends that these discovery requests are relevant, as they relate to Defendant
7
K. Powell’s answers to his interrogatories. However, Plaintiff was aware of the claims in his
8
action, including his claim of deliberate indifference against Defendant Powell for allegedly
9
failing to properly decontaminate Plaintiff after he was pepper sprayed and failure to refer
10
Plaintiff to a doctor. See Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 36-38, Doc. 1. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek
11
a subpoena duces tecum regarding documents pertaining to the above requests.1 The Court does
12
not find Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum to be timely.
13
III.
Conclusion And Order
14
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1.
denied as moot; and
16
17
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum, filed March 11, 2011, is denied as
untimely.
18
19
Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed March 11, 2011 and March 29, 2011, are
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
June 3, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff had filed a motion to re-open discovery on January 14, 2011, as against
Defendant V. Ybarra and other defendants. Doc. 109. Pursuant to the Court’s February 11, 2011
Order, discovery was not re-opened in its entirety, but rather was limited only to filing a motion
to compel regarding Defendants Velasquez and Powell’s answers to interrogatories. See Doc.
113.
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
