Frazier v. Redding Police Department et al
Filing
45
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/23/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 34 motion to compel defendants to answer deposition questions is DENIED; plaintiff's 37 motion for an order compelling discovery is DENIED; and plaintiff's 33 request for appointment of counsel and 36 amended motion to appoint counsel are DENIED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P
ORDER
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
17
§ 1983. Pending before the court are 1) plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to answer
18
written deposition questions, filed on February 17, 2012; 2) plaintiff’s motion and amended
19
motion for appointment of counsel, filed on February 17, 2012, and on March 12, 2012, to which
20
latter request, defendants filed a response on March 20, 2012; 3) plaintiff’s motion for an order
21
compelling discovery, filed on March 12, 2012.
22
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
23
In his initial motion, plaintiff simply and skimpily moves for the court to order
24
defendants to answer questions put to them under oath in their own words. Motion at docket #
25
34. Of course, defendants are required to respond to discovery questions [interrogatories] (to the
26
extent they are not objected to) under oath (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)), so plaintiff’s motion on
1
1
that basis is denied as moot. Plaintiff does not provide any questions to which plaintiff indicates
2
a failure to respond. Plaintiff also asks that the court advance costs for discovery expenses,
3
which is not an appropriate request. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to have the defendants take
4
a deposition upon written questions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, plaintiff fails to demonstrate
5
that he has complied with the requirements of Fed. Rule 31(a)(3). In the required notice from a
6
party who wishes to depose a person by written questions, inter alia, “the name or descriptive
7
title and address of the officer before whom the deposition will be taken” must be stated. Under
8
Rule 31(b), “[t]he party who noticed the deposition must deliver to the officer a copy of all the
9
questions served and of the notice.” Thereafter, the officer is to take the testimony of the
10
deponent, prepare and certify the deposition and return it to the deposing party. There is no
11
showing by plaintiff that he has complied with the requirements for taking a deposition by
12
written questions, and this motion must be denied.
13
In his second motion for an order regarding discovery, it appears what is at issue
14
is a subpoena served on the third party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
15
(CDCR), seeking global positioning system (GPS) “tracks [or trucks].” Motion at 37, p. 1.
16
Plaintiff claims that at first the subpoenaed party permitted him the documents in part, which
17
plaintiff states he used to support his complaint. Id. Plaintiff states that when he sought more
18
detailed documentation as he had been directed, his request was denied and he was told to go
19
through the court, after which CDCR objected to the subpoena. Id. at 2.
20
What is at issue in the second amended complaint are plaintiff’s allegations of the
21
use of excessive force against him by defendants Redding Police Department, Officer Jason
22
Rhoads and Officer Zufall, Badge # 167.1 See Order, filed on October 17, 2011, pp. 1-2.
23
1
24
25
26
“Claims by pretrial detainees are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.
16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Because pretrial detainees’ rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment,
however, we apply the same standards. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435,
1441 (9th Cir.1991).” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
2
1
According to plaintiff, on September 26, 2010, plaintiff ran to escape an assault by vigilantes
2
who thought he was a rapist, child molester and/or ex-gangmember. Second Amended
3
Complaint (SAC), p. 1. As plaintiff ran, defendant Officer Rhoads jumped out of his car,
4
pepper-sprayed plaintiff, forced him to lie on the ground, kneeing him numerous times in the
5
back and punching plaintiff in the face. Id., at 1-2. Defendant Officer Zufall cuffed plaintiff’s
6
right hand; defendant Rhoads pinned down plaintiff’s left hand then drew him up from the
7
ground roughly by the cuffs and threw him in the back of defendant Zufall’s car as plaintiff
8
experienced a bout of asthma from the pepper spray. Id., at 2. When plaintiff arrived at the jail,
9
he had to be transported to the hospital for his injuries to be treated before he could be medically
10
11
cleared for jail. Id.
It is unclear precisely what plaintiff is requesting by way of subpoena of the non-
12
party CDCR and how securing the documentation he evidently seeks could be relevant
13
information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ.
14
P. 26(b)(1). To the extent his purpose can be discerned it appears not to be significantly related
15
to the defendants who are in this action. In any case a subpoena must conform to the
16
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. This motion will be denied.
17
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motions for Appointment of Counsel
18
Plaintiff has previously been informed that the United States Supreme Court has
19
ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in
20
§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain
21
exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.
23
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s initial request for appointment
24
of counsel in the instant case was denied because plaintiff had exhibited sufficient knowledge
25
about his case such that the undersigned found appointment of counsel not to be warranted. See
26
Order, filed on December 2, 2011. In the present case, as defendants point out, the issues are
3
1
relatively straightforward. See response to motion for appointment of counsel, filed on March
2
20, 2012 (docket # 33). This court does not find that the requisite exceptional circumstances are
3
present.
4
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
5
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to answer deposition questions, filed
6
on February 17, 2012 (docket # 34), is denied;
7
8
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery, filed on March 12, 2012
(docket # 37), is denied; and
9
3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, filed on February 17, 2012
10
(docket # 33), and amended motion to appoint counsel, filed on March 12, 2012 (docket # 36),
11
are denied.
12
DATED: April 23, 2012
13
14
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:009
fraz1351.ord5
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
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?