(PC) Richardson v. Bryant, et al, No. 1:1999cv06575 - Document 140 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 133 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/5/2009. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Richardson v. Bryant, et al Doc. 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK RICHARDSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:99-cv-06575-OWW-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 133.) vs. H. L. BRYANT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Plaintiff, Patrick Richardson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint 21 on November 1, 1999. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed 22 on July 3, 2007, against Defendant Captain D. Ortiz (“Defendant”) for denial of access to the courts.1 23 (Doc. 85.) 24 On March 26, 2009, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing deadlines of 25 November 30, 2009 for completion of discovery, including motions to compel, and January 28, 2010 26 for the filing of dispositive motions. (Doc. 110.) On August 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel 27 28 1 All other claims and defendants have been dismissed from this action. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 production of documents by Defendant. (Doc. 133.) On August 13, 2009, Defendant filed an 2 opposition. (Doc. 136.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to the opposition. 3 Plaintiff's motion to compel is now before the court. 4 5 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT ORTIZ AND ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIM 6 The events alleged in the Second Amended Complaint occurred at Corcoran State Prison 7 beginning on July 14, 1999, while Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff brings the following 8 allegations against Defendant Captain D. Ortiz, the only defendant remaining in this action. 9 While Plaintiff was confined in Administrative Segregation (“Ad-Seg”) for thirty-five days, he 10 told Ortiz it was crucial for him to have appropriate court access to litigate his pending petition for 11 habeas corpus at the court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff told Ortiz he had a thirty-day 12 court deadline. Ortiz acknowledged Plaintiff’s predicament and wrote the information on a form, but 13 otherwise ignored his request. Plaintiff alleges that Ortiz’s conduct caused him to miss the thirty-day 14 deadline, resulting in the dismissal of his habeas corpus action. 15 Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 16 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes 17 to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Id. at 354. 18 The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in 19 court. Id. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration or hindrance of “a 20 litigating opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a meritorious 21 suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 22 (2002). In this instance, Plaintiff’s access claim is backward-looking, as Plaintiff claims that his pending 23 habeas corpus petition was dismissed as a result of Defendant’s inaction. To prevail on his claim, 24 Plaintiff “must show: 1) the loss of a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; 2) the official acts 25 frustrating the litigation; and 3) a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but that is not otherwise 26 available in a future suit.” Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 The first element requires that Plaintiff show he suffered an “actual injury” by being shut out of 28 court. Harbury 536 U.S. at 415, 121 S.Ct. at 2187; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. at 2180; Phillips, 2 1 477 F.3d at 1076. The second element requires that Plaintiff show defendant proximately caused the 2 alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights, “[t]he touchstone . . . [for which] is foreseeability.” Phillips, 477 3 at 1077. Finally, the third element requires that Plaintiff show he has no other remedy than the relief 4 available via this suit for denial of access to the courts. Id. at 1078-79. 5 III. MOTION TO COMPEL 6 Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to produce documents. Plaintiff also 7 requests that Defendant be ordered to pay $250.00 sanctions for causing him to bring a motion to 8 compel. 9 A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 33(a), 34(a), and 37 10 Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 11 follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's 12 claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any 13 documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any 14 discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject 15 matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery 16 appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 17 Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any party may serve on any 18 other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and copy any 19 designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the 20 request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). 21 Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding discovery 22 may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided 23 evasive or incomplete responses. 24 propounding party to bring a motion to compel discovery responses “ if a party, in response to a request 25 for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested 26 or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for ... an order compelling 27 inspection in accordance with the request.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(a)(2)(B). An evasive or incomplete 28 disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3). 3 Rule 37(a)(2)(B) empowers a 1 Pro. 37(a)(3). The failure to respond to document requests “may not be excused on the ground that the 2 discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for protective 3 order.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(d). It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within 4 the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 5 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981)). The 6 moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of 7 discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted.). 8 B. 9 Plaintiff requests an “order compelling defendants to produce all documents relating to this 10 Cause of Action, including any and all investigative reports and/or Staff misconduct Complaints 11 involving plaintiff and defendants at the California State Prison-Corcoran.” Pltf’s Mtn, Doc 133 at 1. 12 Plaintiff contends that Defendant has made improper objections to plaintiff’s requests for production of 13 documents, on the grounds that the documents are privileged or confidential, and that disclosure would 14 jeopardize the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the institution. Plaintiff submits as exhibits his 15 First Request for Production of Documents, dated June 11, 2009, and Defendant Ortiz’s Responses to 16 Plaintiff’s First Request, dated July 20, 2009. Pltf’s Mtn, Doc. 133, Exh A & B. Plaintiff’s Arguments 17 C. 18 Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the information requested is not 19 relevant to the claim in this case and is protected by both privacy rights and the official information 20 privilege. Defendant argues that any documents related to gang investigations or why plaintiff was 21 placed in Ad-Seg are not relevant to plaintiff’s access to courts claim, which is the only claim remaining 22 in this action. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s request for “discovery of complaint, tort claim, and 23 investigative files against the individual defendant(s) alleging unreasonable misconduct, or various 24 forms of dishonesty,” is not a request plaintiff made in his request for production of documents, and 25 notes that plaintiff has not referred to any specific request or document. Defendant argues that Plaintiff 26 is not entitled to any such documents, and it would be burdensome to even try to assemble the 27 documents as requested. In addition, Defendant submits evidence that Defendant Ortiz’s personnel file 28 /// Defendant’s Opposition 4 1 has been reviewed and contains no letters of reprimand or any evidence of untruthfulness. Decl of B. 2 Kemp, Doc. 137 at ¶4. 3 D. 4 It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s only remaining claim in this action is against Defendant Ortiz for 5 violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right of access to the courts, alleging that Ortiz ignored Plaintiff’s 6 requests for court access to litigate his pending petition for habeas corpus, resulting in the dismissal of 7 the habeas corpus action. All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action by the court 8 on September 30, 2008. (Doc. 102.) Therefore, plaintiff is only entitled to obtain discovery of 9 nonprivileged matter relevant to, or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 10 relevant to, his access to courts claim against Defendant Ortiz. Documents related to investigations into 11 plaintiff’s gang affiliations or the reasons he was placed in Ad-Seg are not relevant. Discussion 12 As for plaintiff’s other requests in the motion to compel, plaintiff has not sufficiently narrowed 13 the scope of the documents he wishes Defendant to produce or indicated how the documents are relevant 14 to the claim and defenses in this action. The request for “all documents relating to this Cause of Action” 15 encompasses any number of documents, failing to specify dates, locations, or other information to 16 inform Defendant what to search for and when the search is over. Although Plaintiff refers to his First 17 Request for Production of Documents, he fails to refer specifically to any of the enumerated Requests. 18 Plaintiff has not shown how complaints, tort claims, and investigative files, as well as officers’ personnel 19 records, are relevant to whether Defendant Ortiz denied Plaintiff access to the courts. Without more 20 information, the court must deny the motion to compel. 21 IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 22 Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions of $250.00 for Defendant’s failure to comply with discovery. 23 A. 24 Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides: 25 26 27 28 Request for Monetary Sanctions “If [a] motion to compel is granted– or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed– the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this payment if: 5 1 (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 2 3 4 5 In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied, the motion for sanctions 6 shall also be denied. 7 V. 8 9 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, filed August 3, 2009, is DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij November 5, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
