(PC) Stowers v. Harbako ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN STOWERS, No. 2:18-cv-2177 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HRABKO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff alleges defendant was deliberately 18 indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In an order and 19 findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2020, this court recommended defendant’s 20 motion for summary judgment be granted on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his 21 administrative remedies prior to filing this suit. In addition, this court addressed a motion to 22 compel plaintiff appended to his opposition to the summary judgment motion. This court denied 23 the motion to compel defendant to further respond to requests for admissions and requests for the 24 production of documents. (ECF No. 55.) 25 Plaintiff again seeks to compel defendant to respond to the same requests for admissions 26 and request for production of documents addressed in the motion plaintiff made previously. 27 Because this court had permitted plaintiff to make the present motions (see ECF No. 55 at 2 n. 2), 28 //// 1 this court will grant plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file the motions to compel, finds 2 no response necessary from defendant, and considers those motions herein. 3 MOTION TO COMPEL ADMISSIONS 4 In his first motion, plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to requests for admissions 5 13, 14, 15 and 16. (ECF No. 57.) 6 Request No. 13 – “Please admit or deny that incarcerated individuals (inmates) are not 7 required to fully exhaust administrative remedies in certain circumstances.” 8 Defendant objected to this request on numerous grounds. This court previously held that 9 the request was improper because a party may not request an admission of a legal conclusion. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) (limiting subjects upon which admissions may be sought); In re Tobkin, 11 578 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2014). This court further noted that any response by defendant 12 to request no. 13 would not affect this court’s consideration of the legal exceptions to the 13 exhaustion requirement. In sum, plaintiff’s request seeks information that is not relevant to this 14 court’s determination of whether or not plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. 15 Plaintiff’s renewed motion provides no basis to hold otherwise. 16 Request No. 14 – “Please admit or deny that the suggestion that Mr. Stowers should seek 17 further review on his Health Care Appeal (HC 602) concerned an anticipated action and not the 18 issue of deliberate indifference by Dr. Harabako [sic].” 19 Defendant again objected on numerous grounds. In the October 15 order, this court found 20 valid defendant’s objection that the request was ambiguous and calls for speculation. Dr. Hrabko 21 did not author the institutional response to plaintiff’s health care appeal and cannot be charged 22 with interpreting its meaning. Even had defendant attempted a more substantive response to this 23 request, it would not have affected this court’s consideration of the issues involved in plaintiff’s 24 argument that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement. In other words, the request 25 sought information irrelevant to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff makes no new 26 arguments that would change that conclusion. 27 Request No. 15 – “Please admit or deny that Ogo v. City of Torrance, 37 Cal.App. 3d 28 830; White v. CA, 195 Cal.App. 3d 452; In re Dexter, 25 Cal. 3d 921; In re Arias, 42 Cal. 3d 667; 1 Bockover v. Perko, 28 Cal.App. 4th 479; and In re Serna, 76 Cal.App. 3d 1010, explains six (6) 2 different instances where an inmate is not required to fully exhaust his or her administrative 3 remedies.” 4 Defendant again objected that the request sought a legal opinion. This court previously 5 agreed with that assessment and nothing about plaintiff’s current motion changes this court’s 6 opinion. Plaintiff may not seek a legal conclusion by way of requests for admissions. Plaintiff’s 7 request does not seek information relevant to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 8 Request No. 16 – “Please admit or deny that Plaintiff was not required to fully exhaust his 9 administrative remedies before filing this suit.” 10 Again, plaintiff seeks a legal conclusion from this request. And, again, this court found 11 previously, and finds again, that any response to the request would not affect this court’s analysis 12 of the issues raised by defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 13 MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS 14 Plaintiff moves to compel responses to two requests for the production of documents. 15 Request No. 7 – “Please provide copies of any and all documents concerning any CDCR 16 appeals filed by inmates against the Defendant in the past five years.” 17 Defendant interposed numerous objections to that request. However, defendant also 18 provided plaintiff with a substantive response. (See ECF No. 58 at 8 (“Defendant produces 19 responsive documents as Exhibit D.”). Plaintiff has not provided a copy of that substantive 20 response. Therefore, this court is unable to determine its reasonableness. 21 In any event, it appears from plaintiff’s argument that defendant asserted that there were 22 no other grievances against him during the relevant time period. Plaintiff argues that it is “hard to 23 believe” there are no other grievances. Plaintiff’s surprise is not grounds to compel a further 24 response. 25 Request No. 17 – “Please provide copies of any documents requiring Plaintiff to exhaust 26 administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.” 27 Defendant objected on numerous grounds, including that plaintiff was asking defendant to 28 do his legal research. Defendant then directed plaintiff to the California Code of Regulations 1 | (‘CCR”) and Department Operations Manual (“DOM”) and informed plaintiff that both could be 2 | found in the prison law library. As this court held in its prior order, plaintiff’s complaint that 3 | neither publication states that prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies before they 4 | file a lawsuit is not correct. As discussed in that order, the CCR sets out the requirements for 5 || exhaustion and plaintiff has provided no competent evidence that it was unavailable to him in the 6 | law library in 2018 when he submitted his grievance. 7 In sum, plaintiff fails to provide any new arguments that would change this court’s prior 8 || opinion that his motions to compel should fail. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against defendant in 9 | both motions. Because this court finds plaintiff’s motions without merit, his requests for 10 | sanctions are denied. 11 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plamtiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 56) is granted. Plaintiff’s motions 13 || tocompel are deemed timely filed. 14 2. Plamtiff’s motion to compel admissions (ECF No. 57) is denied. 15 3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents (ECF No. 58) is denied. 16 4. Plamtiff’s motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 57, 57) are denied. 17 18 Dated: October 26, 2020 20 ORAH BARNES 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 DLB:9 23 || DB/prisoner-civil rights/stow2177.mtes or(2) 24 25 26 27 28