Wilkins v. County of Contra Costa

Filing 98

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 81 Motion for Discovery; denying 83 Motion. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

KEENAN G. WILKINS,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 16-cv-07016-JD

ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 83, 95
DAVID O. LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

13

1983. Previously service had only been completed for six of the ten defendants. The Court

14

ordered the United States Marshal (“USM”) to again attempt service on defendants Deputy

15

Arnada, Deputy Wilson, Lieutenant Vannoy and Deputy Engalstad. Counsel for the served

16

defendants accepted service for Deputy Engalstad and the USM reports that service was executed

17

on defendants Wilson and Vannoy. The Court will wait for these newly served defendants to

18

appear in this action.

19

The USM was unable to complete service on Deputy Arnada, reporting that they were

20

unable to identify that individual at Martinez Detention Facility. Counsel for defendants also

21

noted that there was no Deputy Arnada employed at Martinez Detention Facility at the time of the

22

events in this action or currently. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date this order is served,

23

plaintiff must provide more information about Deputy Arnada and his or her location so service

24

can be effectuated. Plaintiff may seek such information through the California Public Records Act

25

or any other means available. Failure to provide sufficient information for service will result in a

26

dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

27
28

Plaintiff has also filed a new motion that contains discovery requests. Docket No. 83.
Plaintiff is again informed that the Court generally is not involved in the discovery process and

1

only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses.

2

Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy

3

sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not”

4

be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only

5

when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the

6

parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not

7

have the resources to oversee all discovery, and so requires that the parties present to it only their

8

very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements

9

(rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that the parties meet and
confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the Court does not

12

require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer

13

by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes,

14

the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet

15

and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. Plaintiff was already

16

provided this information about discovery; therefore, his motion for discovery is denied and

17

plaintiff should seek his discovery from defendants.

18

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a settlement conference. Defendants do not feel a

19

settlement conference is warranted at this time. The Court agrees and notes that dispositive

20

motions have already been filed and the outstanding defendants still need to appear. The Court

21

will consider a settlement conference after the dispositive motions have been addressed.

22

Plaintiff also seeks clarification or reconsideration of the dismissal of the County as a

23

defendant in this case. “[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted

24

solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or

25

custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to

26

represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under §

27

1983.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). To properly plead a claim under

28

Monell, it is insufficient to allege simply that a policy, custom, or practice exists that caused the
2

1

constitutional violations. AE v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012). Pursuant

2

to the more stringent pleading requirements set forth in Iqbal, at 682-83, and Twombly, at 553-56,

3

a plaintiff suing a municipal entity must allege sufficient facts regarding the specific nature of the

4

alleged policy, custom or practice to allow the defendant to effectively defend itself, and these

5

facts must plausibly suggest that plaintiff is entitled to relief. AE, 666 F.3d at 636-37 (citing Starr

6

v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011), which summarized new pleading standards derived

7

from Iqbal, Twombly and related Supreme Court decisions). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations

8

regarding a county policy or custom failed to plausibly suggest he was entitled to relief. This

9

defendant remains dismissed.

CONCLUSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1.

Within twenty-one (21) days of the date this order is served, plaintiff must provide

12

more information about Deputy Arnada and his or her location so service can be effectuated.

13

Failure to provide sufficient information for service will result in a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 4(m).

15

2.

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motions for discovery (Docket No. 81), a

16

pretrial conference (Docket No. 83) and clarification or reconsideration (Docket No. 95) are

17

DENIED.

18

3.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

19

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

20

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

21

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

22

Civil Procedure 41(b).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2019

25
26
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KEENAN G. WILKINS,

Case No. 16-cv-07016-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

DAVID O. LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on February 20, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Keenan G. Wilkins ID: #:AN2387
California Healthcare Facility
P.O. Box 32290
Stockton, CA 95213

19
20
21

Dated: February 20, 2019

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4