Harrison v. Linde, et. al.
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/18/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 52 motion to compel discovery is DENIED; plaintiff's 55 motion for law library access is DENIED; plaintiff's 58 motion for discover y is DENIED; and plaintiff's 59 motion for additional interrogatories is DENIED. Plaintiff may only file the following documents: (a) One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; (b) One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such); (c) Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time, plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and (d) One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations. Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARL F. HARRISON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-1510 KJM CKD P
v.
ORDER
LINDE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
This pro se prisoner action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeds against
19
defendants Linde and Simpson. (See ECF No. 46.) Discovery is proceeding until December 6,
20
2013. (ECF No. 49.) Before the court are several pending motions by plaintiff, most of which
21
concern discovery issues. Defendants have so far opposed one such motion, arguing that it is
22
premature. As no further briefing is necessary, the court addresses all pending motions herein. 1
23
I. Discovery Motions
24
On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, arguing that
25
defendants failed to answer numerous discovery requests, which he attached to the motion. (ECF
26
1
27
In addition to the motions addressed herein, plaintiff recently filed three duplicative motions.
(ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62.) As these motions appear to have been erroneously filed twice, they will
be disregarded.
28
1
1
No. 52.) On October 7, 2013, defendants filed an opposition, arguing that the motion should be
2
denied as premature because the deadline for defendants’ response had not yet passed.
3
Defendants further stated that they had not received two sets of plaintiff’s attached discovery
4
requests, which were not accompanied by proofs of service, and that defense counsel had written
5
to plaintiff offering to respond to this discovery if and when it was propounded. (ECF No. 56.)
6
As defendants’ arguments have merit, this motion will be denied as premature.
7
On November 7, 2013, plaintiff filed a second motion to obtain discovery. (ECF No. 58.)
8
The motion consists of a list of information he would like defendants to provide. Plaintiff is
9
informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery
10
requests served on an opposing party nor that party’s responses should be filed until such time as
11
a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the
12
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with
13
the court unless, and until, they are at issue. Accordingly, this motion will be denied.
14
Also on November 7, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion “to have defendants answer the . . .
15
questions they failed to answer” in certain interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. Plaintiff
16
asserts that defendants responded to these interrogatories on October 23, 2013, but he fails to
17
attach their responses. Plaintiff also seeks to propound additional interrogatories. (ECF No. 59.)
18
Plaintiff has provided no record of what objections defendants made to his requests and has failed
19
to carry his burden to show why their responses are inadequate. See Williams v. Cate, 2011 WL
20
6217378 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (“Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court . . .
21
for each disputed response, why Defendant’s objection is not justified. . . . Plaintiff may not
22
simply assert that he has served discovery responses, that he is dissatisfied, and that he wants an
23
order compelling further responses.”), citing Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523 at *4 (E.D. Cal.
24
Mar. 27, 2008); see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 (party moving to compel discovery
25
responses must include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments
26
why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid). Thus this
27
motion to compel will be denied. The court declines at this time to grant plaintiff leave to serve
28
additional interrogatories beyond the limit set forth in Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
2
1
Procedure.
2
II. Motion for Injunctive Relief
3
On October 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing the Warden of
4
California State Prison, Corcoran to allow him “to make legal copies in excess of 100 pages.”
5
(ECF No. 55.) He asserts that prison law library staff’s failure to make the desired number of
6
copies has resulted in his being unable to file a proposed amended complaint. He further
7
complains that the process for obtaining approval to make copies takes too long. Plaintiff has
8
made previous requests for an order directing prison officials to supply him with legal materials
9
and/or services. These have been denied. (See ECF Nos. 16, 46.)
As set forth in this court’s order of February 25, 2013, an inmate has a constitutionally
10
11
protected right of meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-821
12
(1977). To prevail on a request for relief, however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some
13
sort of denial: he must also show “actual injury” from the denial or delay of services.” Lewis. v.
14
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Here, plaintiff has not shown actual injury from the alleged
15
denial of services. Moreover, the court lacks jurisdiction over the Warden and/or prison law
16
library staff, as they are not defendants in this action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
17
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Plaintiff cannot, by this motion, enjoin persons who are not
18
defendants in the underlying action, based on claims that are not set forth in the operative
19
complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief will be denied.2
20
III. Limiting Order
Plaintiff’s filing of frivolous motions is a burden on this court and impedes the proper
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Local Rule 302 of the Eastern District of California authorizes magistrate judges to handle all
aspects of a prisoner's case short of jury trial. This rule reflects the contours of magistrate judge
authority established by Congress. Pursuant to Section 636, Title 28, United States Code,
magistrate judges may determine any pretrial matter unless it is “dispositive” to the action, see
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980), or seeks injunctive relief of the same
character as that which may be finally granted by the action, see De Beers Consolidated Mines,
Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219-200. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(A). As plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief unrelated to defendants Linde and Simpson’s alleged interference with plaintiff’s
appeal of his criminal conviction in 2009, his motion is properly before the undersigned for
disposition by order. (See ECF No. 36 .)
3
1
prosecution of this action. Plaintiff’s future filings shall therefore be limited as set forth below.
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
3
1. Plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 52) is denied;
4
2. Plaintiff’s October 2, 2013 motion for law library access (ECF No. 55) is denied;
5
3. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2013 motion for discovery (ECF No. 58) is denied;
6
4. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2013 motion for additional interrogatories (ECF No. 59) is
7
8
denied;
5. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:
9
10
a. One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of points and authorities
in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition;
11
b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such);
12
c. Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time. Plaintiff is limited to
13
one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any
14
opposition; and
15
16
d. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken
17
from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
18
Dated: November 18, 2013
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 / harr1590.limit
25
26
27
28
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?