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