Gradford v. McDougall et al
Filing
50
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 41 42 43 Motions to Compel Production of Internal Affairs Investigation Documents; ORDER REQUIRING Defendants to Produce Records of Prisoners' Statements that are not part of Internal Affairs Investigation Documents and are Within Defendants' Possession, Custody, or Control within Thirty Days; Thirty Day Deadline for Plaintiff to File Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/12/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
MCDOUGALL, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTS
(ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43.)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
PRODUCE RECORDS OF PRISONERS’
STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT PART
OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTS AND
ARE WITHIN DEFENDANTS’
POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR
CONTROL, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR
PLAINTIFF TO FILE REQUEST FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM
20
21
22
23
24
I.
BACKGROUND
25
William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
26
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with
27
Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, filed on February 13, 2017, against defendants Tiexiera and
28
McCarthy (“Defendants”) for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)
1
1
On March 23, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, opening discovery
2
and setting out pretrial deadlines for the parties to this case. (ECF No. 33.) The deadline to
3
complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, expired on August 23, 2018.
4
Thus, discovery is now closed.
5
On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel. (ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43.) On June
6
12, 2018, Defendants filed a response to the motions. (ECF No. 44.) On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff
7
filed a reply to Defendants’ response. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff’s motions to compel are now
8
before the court. Local Rule 230(l).
9
II.
DISCOVERY -- LEGAL STANDARDS
10
Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery
11
regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
12
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
13
action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
14
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
15
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of
16
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
17
A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce
18
and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following
19
items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control: any designated documents or
20
tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). “Property is deemed within
21
a party’s ‘possession, custody, or control’ if the party has actual possession, custody, or control
22
thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand.” Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-
23
1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co.,
24
61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB
25
(NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814
26
DLB PC, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).
27
In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no
28
responsive documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party
2
1
should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine whether the party made
2
a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence, Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS
3
(NLS), 2010 WL 892093, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010). If responsive documents do exist but
4
the responsive party claims lack of possession, custody, or control, the party must so state with
5
sufficient specificity to allow the Court (1) to conclude that the responses were made after a case-
6
specific evaluation and (2) to evaluate the merit of that response. Ochotorena v. Adams, No.
7
1:05-cv-01525-LJO-DLB (PC), 2010 WL 1035774, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).
8
Boilerplate objections do not suffice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Burlington N. & Santa Fe
9
Ry. Co., 408 F.3d at 1149.
10
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may move for an order
11
compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The court may order a party to
12
provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R.
13
Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the
14
course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672
15
F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828,
16
833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party
17
moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g.,
18
Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S–10–2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
19
2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02–cv–05646–AWI–SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal.
20
Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the court which discovery requests are
21
the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought
22
is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id.
23
III.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
24
Plaintiff is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione,
25
California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The
26
events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center
27
in Modesto, California, when Plaintiff was detained there as a pretrial detainee in the custody of
28
the Stanislaus County Sheriff.
3
1
This case now proceeds only against defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in
2
violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On January 11, 2018, the court issued an order
3
dismissing all other claims and defendants from this case.1 (ECF No. 22.)
4
5
The allegations recited below reflect Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Tiexiera
and McCarthy for retaliation, upon which this case now proceeds.
6
On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff went to court on pending charges and while he waited in
7
the holding cell to be called into court, an inmate (Inmate Ibanez) had a seizure on the floor.
8
While waiting fifteen to twenty minutes for medical help to arrive, Plaintiff and other inmates
9
felt very uncomfortable, but deputies outside of the holding cell were unconcerned. When a
10
Safety Center nurse arrived, Inmate Ibanez, who only spoke Spanish, was unresponsive from the
11
seizure. The nurse asked defendant Deputy Tiexiera to sit Inmate Ibanez up so she could take
12
his vital signs. Defendant Tiexiera became very upset, grabbed Inmate Ibanez, who was still
13
unresponsive, by the collar with both hands, threw Ibanez against the wall, and placed his foot
14
securely on Ibanez’s leg to keep him from sliding down the wall. Afterward, Plaintiff told
15
defendant Tiexiera that he was going to file a grievance against him for what he did, and
16
defendant Tiexiera told Plaintiff that he “would be next if [he] or other inmates said anything
17
about this incident.” (ECF No. 1 at 6 ¶3.) Defendant Tiexiera threatened Plaintiff with great
18
bodily harm if he spoke up. Plaintiff immediately filed a grievance, fearing for his life. Plaintiff
19
was told that defendant Tiexiera was fired because of this incident and it was proven what he did
20
to Inmate Ibanez.
21
On December 5, 2016, after Plaintiff reported Deputy Tiexiera for throwing Inmate
22
Ibanez against the wall and threatening Plaintiff, word spread that Plaintiff was going to file a
23
grievance against Deputy Tiexiera for using violence against a down inmate. Deputy McCarthy,
24
who was working on the same day as Tiexiera, told Plaintiff, “Gradford! If you know what’s
25
good for you, you will keep your mouth shut.” (ECF No. 1 at 7 ¶3.) Plaintiff took McCarthy’s
26
27
28
The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims concerning mail interference, failure to protect, and false
disciplinary charges, and also dismissed defendants McDougall, Meservey, and Safford from this action, for
violation of Rule 18 and Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 22.)
Therefore, this case now proceeds only against defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation.
1
4
1
threat seriously and filed a grievance against Deputy McCarthy for making a death threat.
2
Plaintiff is extremely worried and afraid he will be harmed by Deputies McCarthy, Tiexiera, or
3
other deputies in the main jail and the second jail (Safety Center). Plaintiff alleges that his safety
4
and life are at very high risk.
5
IV.
6
7
RETALIATION CLAIM - LEGAL STANDARD
Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to
be free from retaliation for doing so. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).
8
As discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Watison v. Carter:
9
“A retaliation claim has five elements. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
1269 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the plaintiff must allege that the retaliated-against
conduct is protected. The filing of an inmate grievance is protected conduct.
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005).
10
11
Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action against
the plaintiff. Id. at 567. The adverse action need not be an independent
constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).
“[T]he mere threat of harm can be an adverse action....” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at
1270.
12
13
14
Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the adverse
action and the protected conduct. Because direct evidence of retaliatory intent
rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from
which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65
F.3d at 808 (“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of
retaliatory intent”); Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d 106, 108–09 (7th Cir. 1987).
15
16
17
18
Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official's acts would chill or
silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.”
Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A]
plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he
suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is “more than
minimal,” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the retaliatory conduct did not
chill the plaintiff from suing the alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation
claim at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 569.
19
20
21
22
Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities' retaliatory
action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution....” Rizzo
v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this
element by alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant's actions
were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were “unnecessary to the
maintenance of order in the institution,” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230
(9th Cir.1984).”
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012).
///
5
1
V.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
2
On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel, which all seek to compel
3
production of documents regarding any investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit of
4
the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department against Deputies Tiexiera and McCarthy for
5
threatening Plaintiff with harm. Plaintiff also seeks to compel records of all statements made by
6
prisoners who were in the holding tank during Inmate Ibanez’s medical emergency on December
7
5, 2016.
8
Defendants respond that they do not have access to Internal Affairs investigative
9
documents if the initiating complaint is determined to be unfounded or unsubstantiated, as it was
10
in this case. Defense counsel, Dan Ferrar, declares that he contacted the Sheriff’s Office and
11
asked a Captain in administration if the Defendants were legally allowed to obtain copies of
12
Internal Affairs investigations. (Decl. of Dan Ferrar, ECF No. 44 at 2 ¶4.) He was told that
13
deputies are only allowed to obtain a copy of the investigation reports if the complaint was
14
determined to be founded. (Id.) Defendants assert that in this case, the Internal Affairs
15
investigation of Plaintiff’s grievance was conducted by the Sheriff’s Department, which
16
concluded the grievance was unfounded. (Id. at 3 ¶5.)
17
Defendants suggest that Plaintiff can obtain the documents he seeks from the Sheriff’s
18
Office via subpoena. In closing, defense counsel asserts, “If the Court indicates it would issue a
19
subpoena for the [Internal Affairs] investigation if requested by Mr. Gradford, I would ask the
20
[Sheriff’s Office] to voluntarily produce the documents without further process.” (Id. at 3 ¶7.)
21
In his reply to Defendants’ response, Plaintiff asserts that he has responded to Defendants’
22
requests in good faith, but defense counsel unreasonably continues to state that he (counsel) is
23
confused or does not understand Plaintiff’s letters, interrogatories, or admissions.
24
Discussion
25
Plaintiff seeks copies of reports of investigations conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit
26
of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department following Plaintiff’s jail grievances complaining
27
about retaliation by Deputies Tiexiera and McCarthy. It appears that Plaintiff submitted two jail
28
grievances/complaints, on January 6, 2017, and July 6, 2017, complaining that Deputies Tiexiera
6
1
and McCarthy threatened him with harm if he reported on misconduct by Deputy Tiexiera. (ECF
2
No. 41 at 9, 10.) Plaintiff also seeks records of any statements made by prisoners who were in
3
the holding tank on December 5, 2016, about what happened during Inmate Ibanez’s medical
4
emergency on that date.
5
The court surmises that the records of statements by prisoners are part of the investigative
6
reports by the Internal Affairs Unit. However, if the statements are not part of the investigative
7
reports requested by Plaintiff, Defendants shall be compelled to produce all records of the
8
prisoners’ statements that are within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
9
The court finds that Defendants have adequately responded to Plaintiff’s requests for
10
production of Internal Affairs investigation reports. Defendants have made a reasonable inquiry
11
and exercised due diligence in attempting to obtain the Internal Affairs investigation documents,
12
but they do not have access to those reports. Defendants are only required to produce documents
13
in their possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion
14
to compel production of Internal Affairs investigation reports from Defendants shall be denied.
15
The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department is not a party to this case and therefore is not
16
required to produce documents pursuant to Plaintiff’s informal requests. While discovery is
17
permissible against nonparties under Rule 45, an informal request is not enough. Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
45. A Rule 45 subpoena is the only discovery method by which information may be obtained
19
from a nonparty. Rule 45 subpoenas permit discovery from nonparties equivalent to discovery
20
from parties under Rule 34. (See Adv. Comm. Note on 1991 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
21
Thus, because Plaintiff did not make a request via subpoena, the Sheriff’s Department was not
22
required to produce the documents he requested, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of
23
documents from the Sheriff’s Department shall be denied.
24
Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to request the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
25
directed to the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, requesting production of the documents
26
he seeks. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file a written request for the court to
27
issue a subpoena duces tecum.
28
///
7
1
VI.
CONCLUSION
2
The court finds that Plaintiff’s motions to compel Internal Affairs investigation reports
3
must be denied. However, to the extent that records of statements by prisoners requested by
4
Plaintiff are not part of the Internal Affairs investigation reports, Defendants shall be compelled
5
to produce any of those records that are within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
6
Subject to certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a
7
subpoena duces tecum, commanding the production of documents from a non-party, and to
8
service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). A
9
subpoena shall “command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony or to
10
produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in
11
the possession, custody or control of that person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(iii).
12
Should Plaintiff choose to file a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum,
13
Plaintiff must (1) file a written request to the court, (2) identify with specificity the documents
14
sought and from whom, and (3) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable
15
through that third party. Further, documents requested must fall within the scope of discovery
16
allowed in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
17
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel Internal Affairs investigation records from
19
Defendants and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, filed on June 8,
20
2018, are DENIED;
21
2.
To the extent that records of prisoner statements requested by Plaintiff are not part
22
of the Internal Affairs investigation records, Defendants are compelled to produce
23
all of those records which are within their possession, custody, or control, within
24
thirty days from the date of service of this order;
25
3.
Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to request the issuance of a subpoena duces
26
tecum to obtain the documents he seeks from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s
27
Department;
28
///
8
1
4.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file a written
2
request to the court as instructed by this order, requesting the issuance of a
3
subpoena duces tecum directed to the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, for
4
production of the Internal Affairs investigation reports and records of prisoner
5
statements sought by Plaintiff; and
6
4.
If Plaintiff does not file a request for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum pursuant
7
to this order within the thirty-day deadline, the court shall consider this matter
8
closed, and this case shall proceed without further notice.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 12, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?