Gomez v. Hedgepeth et al
Filing
46
ORDER Denying 32 and 35 Plaintiff's Motions for Housing and for Discovery, Granting 33 and 34 Plaintiff's Motions to Interview Witnesses and for Status of Defendants and Dismissing Claims against Defendant Kittimongcolporn. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/05/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
DAVID MAURICE GOMEZ,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
No. C-11-3784 TEH (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR HOUSING AND FOR
DISCOVERY, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES
AND FOR STATUS OF DEFENDANTS
AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT KITTIMONGCOLPORN
v.
A. HEDGEPETH, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
/
Doc. ## 32, 33, 34, 35
12
Plaintiff David Maurice Gomez, a state prisoner
13
14
incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), has filed this
15
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding incidents that
16
took place when he was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison
17
(SVSP).
18
addresses.
19
Plaintiff has filed several motions which the Court now
Plaintiff’s first motion, to be housed at a specific
20
penal institution, (Doc. #32), is DENIED.
21
authority to order the California Department of Correction to house
22
inmates at specific penal institutions.
23
The Court lacks the
Plaintiff’s next motion, for the status of unserved
24
Defendants Dr. Laura Post and Dr. Kittimongcolporn, (Doc. #34), is
25
granted, in part.
26
Litigation Coordinator at SVSP to file under seal any forwarding
27
address information for these two Defendants.
28
Coordinator has filed the requested information under seal
On August 3, 2012, the Court requested the
The Litigation
1
indicating that Dr. Kittimongcolporn’s address is unknown and
2
providing the last known address for Dr. Post to the Court and to
3
the United States Marshal.
4
directing the United States Marshal to serve Dr. Post at her last
5
known address.
6
locate these Defendants himself, if the Litigation Coordinator is
7
unable to do so.
8
prejudicial to the served Defendants to delay the adjudication of
9
this case so that Plaintiff may find any unserved Defendants.
10
The Court will issue a separate order
Plaintiff requests additional time so that he may
The Court denies this request.
It would be
In the August 3, 2012 Order, the Court indicated that,
11
pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it
12
would dismiss without prejudice the claims against any Defendant
13
that could not be found and served.
14
without prejudice the claims against Dr. Kittimongcolporn.
Therefore, the Court dismisses
15
Also, in the August 3, 2012 Order, the Court ordered that
16
Defendants’ counsel respond to Plaintiff’s statement that Dr. Tyler
17
was deceased.
18
Tyler is not deceased.1
19
Counsel has filed a response indicating that Dr.
Plaintiff next moves to interview potential and relevant
20
witnesses at SVSP, (Doc. #33).
21
this motion, so the Court is not aware if the parties have met and
22
conferred regarding this request.
Defendants have not responded to
23
The scope of discovery is limited to matters "relevant to
24
any party’s claim or defense . . . Relevant information need not be
25
26
27
28
1
In his motion for discovery, Plaintiff indicates that Dr. Wilson
passed away approximately two months ago. Counsel for Defendants is
requested to file a response indicating if Dr. Wilson is deceased.
2
1
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
2
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
3
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
4
at SVSP who, he indicates, have personal knowledge of the incidents
5
that are relevant to his civil rights claims.
6
the witnesses have indicated they are willing to be interviewed by
7
him in regard to these incidents.
8
9
Fed.
Plaintiff has submitted a list of witnesses
He also states that
The witness list appears to consist of individuals who do
have personal knowledge of incidents that give rise to Plaintiff’s
10
claims.
11
from them.
12
witness in person and to ask each witness to submit a declaration
13
supporting Plaintiff’s claims.
14
be difficult for SVSP to arrange, Plaintiff may “interview” these
15
witnesses by sending each witness written questions for them to
16
answer in writing with a request for them to write and sign a
17
declaration summarizing their answers.
18
granted, in part.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain information
Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to interview each
Because individual interviews may
Therefore, this motion is
19
Finally, Plaintiff moves for discovery of Defendants’
20
records pertaining to their employment, mental health, criminal
21
arrests, discipline and prescribed psychiatric medications, (Doc.
22
#35).
23
claim are Defendants’ employment disciplinary records.
24
is not clear if the parties have met and conferred to discuss this.
25
Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot
26
resolve among themselves should they ask the Court to intervene in
27
the discovery process.
28
The only information potentially relevant to Plaintiff’s
Again, it
The Court does not have the time or
3
1
resources to oversee all discovery and therefore requires that the
2
parties present to it only their very specific disagreements.
3
promote this goal of addressing only very specific disagreements,
4
federal and local discovery rules require the parties to meet and
5
confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court
6
intervention.
7
Rule 37-1.
8
writing.
9
Defendants and he intends to file a motion to compel, he need only
To
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N.D. Cal. Local
Plaintiff may meet and confer with Defendants in
If Plaintiff's discovery requests are denied by
10
send a meet and confer letter to Defendants to that effect,
11
offering them one last opportunity to provide him with the sought-
12
after information.
13
prejudice.
Therefore, this motion is denied without
14
CONCLUSION
15
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for housing and for discovery
16
are denied (doc. ##32, 35); Plaintiff’s motion to interview
17
witnesses is granted, in part (doc. #33), and Plaintiff’s motion
18
for the status of unserved Defendants is granted (doc. #34).
19
20
The claims against Defendant Kittimongcolporn are
dismissed without prejudice.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
DATED
11/05/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Gomez-11-3784-Addressing Pl's Motions.wpd
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?