Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al.

Filing 153

ORDER Denying 111 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and to Extend Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/7/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

Case No. 1:11-cv-0068-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO EXTEND
SCHEDULING ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (ECF No. 111)
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18 I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on a First Amended
21 Complaint (“FAC”) found to state Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims
22 against Defendants Greaves, Bondoc, Punt, Madina, Swingle, Neubarth, Corea and
23 Dhah. (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 26.) Plaintiff now moves the Court to compel Defendants to
24 provide him with a copy of all of his medical records and his entire prisoner central file
25 (“C-File”). Plaintiff also seeks a modification of the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling
26 Order. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff has not filed a reply. For the
27 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
28

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
27

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premised on his claim that he has been prevented

from accessing his medical records and C-File through channels available to him.
Plaintiff first submitted a request for these files to Litigation Coordinator M. Kimbrell, but
his request was denied as follows: “Medical records you have to Rx from UHM at the
hospital. Central File docs are 10 cents per page. Otherwise you need to go thru the
courts in regards to discovery.” See Pl.’s Decl. Ex. A (ECF No. 112). Plaintiff asserts
that he is indigent and thus unable to pay to photocopy his records. Plaintiff also asserts
that he submitted a request for medical records related to his chronic Hep-C, tests,
diagnosis, treatment, and joint pain, but received only a small portion of his records
back with a note stating “Here are records between - 2004-2010. I can’t say what is
related to Hep C, you’ll need to look thru these.” Pl’s Decl. Ex. B.
Next, Plaintiff submitted a discovery request for a copy of his medical records to
Defendant Bondoc, who objected on the grounds that “Defendant is not a CDCR
employee and has no access to Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff, however, may
request to see his medical records at the institution where he is incarcerated.” Pl.’s
Decl. Ex. C.
Plaintiff then sought relief in this Court by filing a request for a temporary
restraining order / preliminary injunction, which was denied for lack of jurisdiction and for
Plaintiff’s failure to show entitlement to relief. (ECF Nos. 71, 85, 106.)
Plaintiff turned to the institution once again for a copy of records. He submitted a
CDCR-22 to his counselor requesting an “Olsen Review” of his C-File, but he has not
yet received a response. Plaintiff also submitted another request for “a copy of all
medical documents indicating the names and dates of each doctor and nurse
practitioner who examined, treated, or interviewed [him] at Corcoran [State Prison]
between 7/27/04 to 12/30/10.” Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. G. The Medical Records Department
denied Plaintiff’s request for lack of specificity since Plaintiff failed to complete a “file

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

review” form indicating what type of information he needed (e.g., doctor’s orders,
progress notes, medical records, etc.) and the dates needed. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. H.

“file review” form was provided to Plaintiff with a handwritten note stating “You need to
give me document type & date – I cannot go thru ea[ch] document and pick out
providers. And keep in mind if you order docs from 2004-2010, you could COD over
$200 – thank you.” Id.

7
8
9

Finally, Plaintiff sought assistance from defense counsel, who Plaintiff claims has
“unbridled authority to scour through Plaintiff’s medical and C-File without any
restrictions or impediments imposed upon her.” Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. I.

10
11
12

In light of his inability to access his records, Plaintiff seeks a six-month extension
of the dates in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order.
III.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A

DISCUSSION
At first glance, it appears that Plaintiff has exhausted his efforts to obtain a copy

of his medical records and C-File. However, Defendants’ opposition and unopposed
evidence undermine Plaintiff’s claims of diligence. For example, Plaintiff claims that he
cannot access his medical records because he is unable to comply with the “policy” that
he specifically identify each document by name and date. Defendants counter that an
inmate does need not to identify a specific document with a specific date in order to
review it, but the inmate is required to specify the type of document sought (e.g.,
interdisciplinary notes, doctor’s orders, etc.) and a date range. Per Litigation
Coordinator J. Kimbrell, Plaintiff’s requests did not meet these requirements since his
search requests were premised on a specific condition, and “the medical records
specialist will not … research what documents in an inmate’s medical files might relate
to a specific type of treatment for a specific condition.” Kimbrell Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants
also submit evidence that, in the past, when Plaintiff tailored his request to the type(s) of
document within a specific date range, he received related medical records. See id. Ex.
A.

28
3

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
27

Plaintiff further claims that his indigence and cannot afford the $0.10 per page
copy charge. As for his medical records, Litigation Coordinator Kimbrell’s declaration
provides that “[w]hile an inmate’s trust account will be charged ten cents a copy for
medical records, an inmate with no money in his inmate trust account will not be denied
copies of medical records. Instead, a charge will be levied against his inmate trust
account. After thirty days, if the inmate still has no funds, the charge will drop off the
account.” Kimbrell Decl. ¶ 5. Thus, Plaintiff’s ability to access his medical records is not
affected by his lack of funds.
As for the effect of Plaintiff’s indigence on his ability to access the nonconfidential records in his C-File, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Initially, Plaintiff should
have a copy of the documents he seeks since he would have received them at or near
the time they were created. Kimbrell Decl. ¶ 6. If Plaintiff does not have a copy, then he
is entitled to an Olsen review to view the records, and he is entitled to one review yearly
as a matter of right. Id. While Plaintiff submits that he filed an Olsen request, Litigation
Coordinator Kimbrell declares that she was not aware of any such request, and Plaintiff
never filed an appeal regarding the lack of a response. Id. ¶ 7. In any event, in response
to this motion, Litigation Coordinator Kimbrell has now arranged for Plaintiff’s
correctional counselor to provide him with an Olsen review. Id. If Plaintiff locates
documents in his C-File that are relevant to this action, he may then request copies of
them at a cost of ten-cents per page. Id. ¶ 6. Since it is not yet clear if any documents in
Plaintiff’s C-File are relevant to this action, the Court finds that the issue of whether
Plaintiff’s indigence affects his ability to access these documents is not ripe.
Finally, Plaintiff’s request that Defendants provide him with a copy of his entire
medical record and C-File will be denied on grounds of overbreadth and relevance.
Plaintiff has been incarcerated since 1996, and his records are extensive. Kimbrell Decl.
¶ 8. This lawsuit concerns only claims of inadequate medical care from 2004 to 2010 for
his Hepatitis C. Absent a showing of relevance, and in light of the overbreadth of the

28
4

1
2

request, Court finds no reason to order Defendants to produce the entire contents of
these files.

3
4
5
6
7
8

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied, as will his related
request for a modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to

compel (ECF No. 111) is DENIED.

9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12

Dated:

July 7, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5