(PC) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, No. 2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2021, the court extended defendants’ deadline for responding 19 to plaintiff’s requests for written discovery to February 8, 2022 and directed defendants to 20 respond to the discovery requests filed with plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos. 41 and 46. ECF No. 21 51. Since then, plaintiff has inundated the docket with discovery-related motions that are 22 redundant and difficult to interpret. See ECF Nos. 52, 53, 551, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 722. As 23 1 In his January 14, 2022 motion, plaintiff sought a stay of discovery on the grounds that 24 his cell and legal property were contaminated with parasites that were “eating [him] alive.” ECF No. 55. On February 18, 2022, defendants filed a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 58. On 25 April 24, 2022, plaintiff requested that the stay be lifted. ECF No. 62. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to stay moot is moot. 26 27 2 Within this filing is a request for counsel. ECF No. 72. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 28 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 1 best the court can tell, plaintiff claims the following: (1) defendants did not respond to his 2 September 30, 2021 requests for admissions and interrogatories (ECF No. 63 at 1); (2) defendants 3 did not produce documents in response to his September 30, 2021 requests for production (id. at 4 1, 3); and (3) defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s requests for “operations policies,” “video 5 recording transcripts,” and “witness statements” as being “too broad” lacks merit (id. at 8). 6 A. Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories 7 Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 46 includes “Interrogatories & Admissions,” dated 8 September 30, 2021. ECF No. 46 at 7, 9 (seeking “records, full names, job duties, salaries, and 9 discipline records” of all defendants), 14 (seeking names and addresses of individuals likely to 10 have discoverable information), 15 (seeking information regarding defendants’ assigned duties, 11 insurance coverage), 16 (seeking information regarding persons involved in investigations), and 12 25-29 (requests for admissions). On December 10, 2021, the court directed defendants to respond 13 to the discovery requests at ECF No. 46 by February 8, 2022. See ECF No. 51 at 2 (finding good 14 cause to extend the scheduling deadlines because plaintiff had demonstrated diligence and 15 claimed he had been harassed by defendant Holets and placed on suicide watch). In response to 16 plaintiff’s subsequent filings claiming that defendants had continued to withhold discovery (see, 17 e.g., ECF No. 52), defendants responded as follows: 18 [Plaintiff’s motion] appears to address the discovery requests addressed by the 19 Court in its order of December 10, 2021 (ECF No. 51). Defendants served responses and objections to the request for production of documents at issue on 20 February 8, 2022, in accordance with the Court’s order. 21 22 ECF No. 61 at 2. This response makes no reference to requests for admissions or interrogatories. 23 If the implication is correct – that defendants never responded to plaintiff’s September 30, 2021 24 attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. 25 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 26 consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 27 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 28 exceptional circumstances in this case. 1 Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories – they shall do so within 14 days from the date of 2 this order. Alternatively, defendants shall certify to the court that they previously responded to 3 this discovery as ordered on December 10, 2021. 4 B. Requests for Production (“RFP”) 5 Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 46 also includes requests for production dated September 6 30, 2021. ECF No. 46 at 15- 20. As noted above, defendants assert that they served responses to 7 these requests on February 8, 2022 in accordance with the court’s December 10, 2021 order. ECF 8 No. 61 at 2. Defendants further assert that they previously responded to plaintiff’s requests for 9 production on November 10, 2021. Id. It is apparent from plaintiff’s filings that he received 10 defendants’ responses to his RFPs because he takes issue with defendants’ objections. See ECF 11 No. 63 at 8 (challenging defendants’ “overbroad” objection to various requests). Apart from the 12 first page, however, plaintiff has not, in the hundreds of pages he has filed with the court, 13 included a copy of defendants’ responses to his requests for production. See ECF No. 66 at 121. 14 As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which discovery requests 15 are the subject of his motion to compel, which of defendants’ responses are disputed, why he 16 believes defendants’ responses are deficient, why defendants’ objections are not justified, and 17 why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. See, 18 e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, 2009 19 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff seeks 20 to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff's motion.”); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 21 CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. 22 Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of 23 his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information 24 sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified.”). Stating generally that one 25 of defendants’ objections lacks merit is not sufficient. Plaintiff will be granted a final opportunity 26 to file a motion to compel that identifies and reproduces for the court the responses he deems 27 deficient. 28 ///// 1 C. Order 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 3 1. Within 14 days from the date of this order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with their 4 responses to plaintiff's “Interrogatories & Admissions” and provide notice to the court of 5 the same. Alternatively, defendants shall certify to the court that they previously 6 responded to this discovery as ordered on December 10, 2021; 7 2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff may file a motion to compel further 8 responses to his requests for production of documents in accordance with this order; 9 3. Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 55) is denied as moot; 10 4. Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 72) is denied; and 11 5. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate ECF Nos. 50, 59, 62, 63, 65, 68, 72. 12 || Dated: April 29, 2022. 13 oat od i “2 14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28