Gilmore v. Augustus, et al.

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 42 Request for Leave to Propound Additional Interrogatories Upon Defendant Lopez, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/16/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

C. DWAYNE GILMORE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
D. AUGUSTUS, et al.,

14

1:12-cv-00925-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF‟S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PROPOUND
ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES UPON
DEFENDANT LOPEZ
(Doc. 42.)

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

BACKGROUND
C. Dwayne Gilmore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First
Amended Complaint filed on March 8, 2013, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) C.
Lockard, C/O C. Lopez, C/O J. Hightower, and C/O J. J. Torres for excessive force, and against
defendant C/O J. J. Torres for denial of adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.1 (Doc. 12.) This case is now in the discovery phase.2

1
On November 18, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this
action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) Defendants Lieutenant D. Augustus, Sergeant J. S. Diaz, Licensed
Vocational Nurse (LVN) A. Serna, LVN B. Ismat, LVN I. Bari, LVN J. Canada, LVN Z. Nartume, and John Doe
were dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may
be granted under §1983, and Plaintiff=s claims based on supervisory liability and claims for conspiracy and
violation of due process were dismissed from this action for Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Id.)
2

On April 25, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order in this action, opening discovery and
establishing a deadline of December 25, 2014 for the completion of discovery. (Doc. 36.)
1

1

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to propound fifteen additional

2

interrogatories on defendant C. Lopez. (Doc. 42.) Defendant C. Lopez has not filed an

3

opposition.

4
5

II.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AND EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT LOPEZ

6

A.

7

The events at issue occurred at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, when

8

Allegations

Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

9

On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff had just finished his inmate porter duties when he heard a

10

commotion behind him and noticed an incident occurring between two handcuffed inmates and

11

an officer. An alarm sounded, and Plaintiff got down on the ground. C/O Lockard aimed his

12

Launcher Gun at Plaintiff‟s right thigh and shot him with a sponge round. Plaintiff was struck

13

in the front inner right lower thigh/upper kneecap area, ripping a large hole in his leg. Plaintiff

14

fell backwards onto the floor, actively bleeding. C/O Lockard called down to C/O Lopez,

15

“Check Gilmore. I shot him. He was trying to get involved.” Amd Cmp, Doc. 12 at 7 ¶21.

16

Plaintiff was lying defenseless on the floor, in immense pain, attempting to put pressure on the

17

wound. C/O Lopez walked over to Plaintiff and stood over him, stating, “You want to get

18

involved motherf---er? You‟re involved now.” Amd Cmp at 7 ¶23. C/O Lopez then sprayed

19

Plaintiff with pepper spray without justification, in his face and up and down his backside. C/O

20

Hightower approached Plaintiff and also began spraying him with pepper spray. Defendants

21

Lopez and Hightower both emptied their pepper spray canisters on Plaintiff.

22

C/O Torres then handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back and aggressively yanked Plaintiff

23

up from the floor. Plaintiff lost consciousness from pain but then awoke and began to yell that

24

he was injured, bleeding, and needed medical attention. Plaintiff began to feel severe burning

25

from the pepper spray. C/O Torres said, “You‟re not getting s--t,” forced Plaintiff to walk

26

while in pain, and then shoved Plaintiff‟s face into the concrete wall, causing Plaintiff‟s glasses

27

to chip and scratch Plaintiff‟s face, and busting Plaintiff‟s bottom lip. Amd Cmp at 8 ¶¶34-36.

28

LVN‟s Canada, Serna, Ismat, and Nartume, who had all responded to the alarm, refused to
2

1

examine Plaintiff on-site or direct Plaintiff‟s transportation to Medical Service. Sgt. Diaz

2

instructed C/O Torres to escort Plaintiff to the Program Office, and Plaintiff was forced to

3

walk, in obvious pain, to the Program Office patio area. C/O Torres intentionally led Plaintiff

4

into the metal door frame, causing Plaintiff to hit his mouth, aggravating his busted and swollen

5

bottom lip. C/O Torres told Plaintiff, “You gotta watch where you‟re going, Gilmore,” and

6

began to chuckle. Amd Cmp at 9 ¶44. C/O Torres forced Plaintiff to continue walking, and

7

intentionally led him into another metal door frame, smacking Plaintiff‟s face hard into the

8

door frame. C/O Torres said, “Gilmore, why do you keep doing that? I‟m going to have to

9

write you up for self-mutilation,” and then snickered. Amd Cmp at 10 ¶47.

10

Plaintiff‟s right knee began to give out and he cried out to C/O Torres, “I can‟t walk no

11

more, my knee is broken,” and began to collapse. Amd Cmp at 10 ¶¶48, 49. C/O Torres

12

yanked Plaintiff upright and threatened to harm him, stating, “You try to go down on me and

13

I‟m going to slam your [expletive] on the ground. Now walk!” Amd Cmp at 10 ¶¶50, 51.

14

Fearful, Plaintiff continued to limp while in immense pain. C/O Torres intentionally led

15

Plaintiff into the Pedestrian Gate steel door, striking Plaintiff‟s right kneecap area, causing

16

Plaintiff to scream out in pain and almost lose consciousness. C/O Torres led Plaintiff past

17

Medical Service to the front of the Program Office, then forced him down onto the hot asphalt,

18

stating, “Sit there!” Amd Cmp at 11 ¶56. Plaintiff screamed in pain from his knee injury and

19

the burning of the pepper spray, for approximately 27 minutes. Lieutenant Augustus said,

20

“Gilmore, I‟m right here for you;” C/O Bari commented, “He looks like he‟s burning;” and

21

C/O Torres said, “He sure is!” Amd Cmp at 11 ¶¶59-61.

22

Plaintiff was led to the front of Medical Services and forced down onto the hot asphalt.

23

Plaintiff continued to beg, cry and plea to be decontaminated from the pepper spray, and for

24

medical attention. C/O Torres said, “After we take pictures.” Amd Cmp at 12 ¶67. Water was

25

poured over Plaintiff‟s gunshot wound, clearing away the evidence of excessive bleeding.

26

Plaintiff was forced into a chair in Medical Services, where photographs were taken of

27

Plaintiff‟s wound.

28

Plaintiff‟s wound, intentionally causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.

While the photos were being taken, defendant John Doe pulled open

3

Plaintiff regained

1

consciousness and was led outside of Medical Service by C/O Torres, who told Plaintiff, “Go

2

down on your knees if you want to be decontaminated.” Amd Cmp at 13 ¶75. Plaintiff went

3

down on his left knee, leaving his right leg stretched out. C/O Torres told Plaintiff, “No! Both

4

knees or you‟re not getting any water.” Amd Cmp at 13 ¶77. Plaintiff bent his right leg and

5

placed his knee onto the hot asphalt, causing excruciating pain. C/O Torres then began to

6

decontaminate Plaintiff by spraying him with water. Every minute or so, C/O Torres would

7

stop spraying Plaintiff and say, “Tell me you want more!” and snicker. Amd Cmp at 14 ¶80.

8

Defendant Sgt. Diaz asked C/O Torres, “You‟re just now decontaminating him?” Amd Cmp at

9

14 ¶81. C/O Torres decontaminated Plaintiff for about five minutes and then placed him in a

10

holding cell.

11

decontaminate without instructions. The blood vessels in Plaintiff‟s eyes had burst. At Delano

12

Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff‟s wound was x-rayed for broken bones, and the wound was

13

stapled shut. Plaintiff was housed in administrative segregation at KVSP on the false charge of

14

assault on a peace officer.

Still burning and blind from the pepper spray, Plaintiff began to self-

15

On July 9, 2010, at his initial hearing, Plaintiff denied the charge and countercharged

16

cruel and unusual punishment, denial of due process, and conspiracy. On July 20, 2010,

17

Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report authored by defendant C/O C. Lopez, falsely

18

reporting that Plaintiff had assaulted a peace officer. On August 18, 2010, at his disciplinary

19

hearing, Plaintiff pled not guilty and was found guilty.

20
21

Plaintiff continues to experience itchiness, numbness, pain, stiffness, and throbbing in
his right knee as a result of the gunshot wound.
Excessive Force Claim – Eighth Amendment

22

B.

23

The court found that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendant Lopez for use

24

of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 13.)

25

AWhat is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

26

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .@ Hudson

27

v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). AThe objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim

28

is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.@ Id. (internal quotation
4

1

marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always

2

violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is

3

evident.

4

Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis

5

injuries)). However, not Aevery malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause

6

of action.@ Id. at 9. AThe Eighth Amendment=s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments

7

necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force,

8

provided that the use of force is not of a sort >repugnant to the conscience of mankind.@ Id. at

9

9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth

10

A[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in

11

violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether

12

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and

13

sadistically to cause harm.@ Id. at 7. AIn determining whether the use of force was wanton and

14

unnecessary, it may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship

15

between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the

16

responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.@ Id.

17

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). AThe absence of serious injury is . . . relevant

18

to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does not end it.@ Id.

19

III.

REQUEST TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES

20

A.

21

Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A[u]nless otherwise

22

stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written

23

interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be

24

granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Rule 26(b)(2)(A)

25

provides that A[b]y order, the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of . . .

26

interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). However, “the court must limit the frequency or

27

extent of discovery . . . if it determines that (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative

28

or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

Legal Standard

5

1

burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to

2

obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed

3

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in

4

controversy, the parties‟ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

5

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

6

“„[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its

7

decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of

8

discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.‟” Dichter-Mad

9

Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan,

10

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (alteration omitted)); accord Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d

11

1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)). “A plaintiff seeking discovery must allege „enough fact to raise a

12

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal‟ the evidence he seeks.” Dichter-Mad Family

13

Partners, LLP, 709 F.3d at 751 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556,

14

127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)); see also Gager v. United States, 149 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It

15

is well-established that the burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put

16

forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists.”)

17

Discussion

18

Plaintiff requests leave to propound forty interrogatories upon defendant C. Lopez.

19

Plaintiff has submitted his proposed “First Request for Interrogatories to defendant Lopez”

20

containing the forty interrogatories, for the court‟s review, (Exhibits to Request, Doc. 42 at 4-

21

26), indicating that he intends to propound interrogatories nos. 1-25 and seeks leave of court to

22

also propound interrogatories nos. 26-40.

23

The court has reviewed Plaintiff‟s interrogatories and does not find them to be

24

unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or overburdensome. For these reasons, and in light of

25

the fact that defendant Lopez has not opposed Plaintiff‟s motion, the court finds good cause to

26

allow Plaintiff to propound the forty interrogatories upon defendant Lopez.

27

///

28

///
6

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

Plaintiff‟s motion to propound additional interrogatories, filed on May 16, 2014,
is GRANTED;

2.

6

Plaintiff is granted leave to propound the forty interrogatories submitted for
review to the court on May 16, 2014, upon defendant Lopez.

7

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 16, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
7