Morris v. Barra et al
Filing
185
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 147 Motion to Compel; denying Plaintiff's 173 Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees; granting Plaintiff's 180 Ex Parte Motion to Continue and Ordering Defendants to file a Response; and denying as moot Plaintiff's 182 Ex Parte Motion for Extension of time to file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 10/15/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CONDALEE MORRIS,
12
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
ORDER:
13
14
1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL;
2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES;
3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
MOTION TO CONTINUE AND
ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE; &
4) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
15
16
17
10-CV-2642-AJB (BGS)
M BARRA, Program Sergeant; et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
[Doc. Nos. 147, 173, 180 & 182]
21
22
Currently pending before the Court are various motions filed by Plaintiff Condalee Morris,
23
a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action filed
24
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests,
25
a motion for costs and attorneys fees, a motion to continue, and an objection, which the Court
26
interprets as an ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a response in opposition to
27
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 147, 173, 180, and 182.) The Court will address
28
Plaintiff’s requests in turn.
1
10cv2642-AJB
1
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests
2
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests on April 27, 2012, nunc
3
pro tunc to February 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 147.) Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to a request for
4
production of documents dated December 6, 2011, interrogatories and request for production of
5
documents dated December 6, 2011, and a Pitchess motion for discovery dated December 6, 2011.
6
(Id., Exs. 1-3.) On May 30, 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s
7
motion to compel no later than June 15, 2012. (Doc. No. 154.) On May 31, 2012, Defendants filed
8
a response in opposition, including Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s request for production of
9
documents–set two and Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and request for
10
production of documents–set one. (Doc. No. 155 & Exs. 1 & 2.)
11
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any non-privileged material
12
“that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” is within the scope of discovery. Information is
13
relevant for purposes of discovery if “it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14
admissible evidence,” even if the information is not admissible at trial. Id. The court must limit
15
discovery if “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,
16
considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance
17
of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”
18
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) (C)(iii).
19
A. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents
20
Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks to compel responses to his request for production of
21
documents, dated December 6, 2011. (Doc. No. 147 at 3-4.) In his request for production, Plaintiff
22
seeks ten categories of documents. Defendants Mills, Barra, Janda and White objected to these
23
document requests on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant
24
information, and that the requests are premature in that the pleadings are not in final form.1 (Doc.
25
No. 155 at 8-14.)
26
27
28
1
Defendants served their objections while their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint was pending. The same bases for their objections exists currently as the pleadings are still
not in final form given the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint.
2
10cv2642-AJB
1
In reviewing the requests, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests
2
for production 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as being overbroad and unduly burdensome at this stage
3
in the litigation. These requests seek merits discovery regarding the prison’s policies concerning
4
inmate complaints to medical staff of being sexually assaulted by a peace officer, the prison’s
5
policies regarding medical staff and sick call procedures as to the general prison population and the
6
administrative segregation population, all sick call request sheet forms from August 12, 2010 to the
7
present, Plaintiff’s complete medical record from August 12, 2010 to the present, Plaintiff’s
8
complete mental health record from August 12, 2010 to the present, any and all documents created
9
by any Calipatria staff in response to a grievance filed by Plaintiff on August 12, 2010, any and all
10
documents created by Calipatria staff from August 12, 2010 to the present concerning Plaintiff’s
11
medical care, including a copy of his medical record at Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, the
12
names of facility “B” medical staff that was assigned to provide medical care for the prisoners on
13
August 12, 2012, and the names of Segregation Medical staff in A-5 that was assigned to provide
14
medical care for prisoners on August 12, 2012. (Id.; Doc. No. 155 at 13.)
15
16
17
On March 27, 2012, the Court issued its decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint and ruled as follows:
2.
The Court GRANTS Defendants Mills and Barra’s motion to dismiss the
18
Eighth Amendment violation based on sexual assault and excessive force for
19
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court DISMISSES the claim
20
with prejudice.
21
3.
The Court GRANTS Defendants Barra’s motion to dismiss the Eighth
22
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs for
23
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court DISMISSES the claim
24
without prejudice.
25
4.
claims without leave to amend.
26
27
28
The Court GRANTS Defendant White’s motion to dismiss the due process
5.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Janda’s motion to dismiss the due process
claims with leave to amend.
3
10cv2642-AJB
1
(Doc. No. 134 at 17.) Defendants Mills, Barra, Janda and White have filed a motion to dismiss
2
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) that is currently pending before the Court. (Doc.
3
No. 151.) Defendant Hubbel has also filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC that is currently
4
pending before the Court. (Doc. No. 166.) No answers have been filed in this case. Plaintiff’s
5
request for documents pertaining to inmate complaints to medical staff of sexual assaults by peace
6
officers is irrelevant in light of the Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claim against
7
Defendants Mills and Barra for an eighth amendment violation based on a sexual assault. Document
8
requests regarding Plaintiff’s medical care and medical records may be relevant and proper if this
9
case proceeds past motions to dismiss and the Court issues a scheduling order setting deadlines for
10
discovery and other pretrial matters. Additionally, Plaintiff has not named any Doe defendants in
11
his Third Amended Complaint, and therefore his request for the names of medical staff who may
12
have been witnesses to the medical care he received on August 12, 2010 also goes towards the
13
merits of this case. Given that this case is still in the pleading stage, the Court finds that merits-
14
based discovery is inappropriate at this time, as its relevancy is outweighed by the burden and
15
expense of production.
16
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request 6. In request number
17
6, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny logs, lists, or other documentation including the complain[t] that [was]
18
file[d] by his family and friends reflecting grievance file[d] by inmate Condalee Morris from 8/12/10
19
to the date of your response.” (Doc. No. 147 at 4.) Defendants objected to this request, asserting
20
that the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is premature due
21
to the state of the pleadings in this case. (Doc. No. 155 at 11.) The Court agrees that this request
22
is overbroad and unduly burdensome at this stage in the proceedings. Plaintiff has not asserted that
23
he does not have copies of the relevant prisoner grievances he submitted in connection with his
24
allegations in the Third Amended Complaint. In fact, Plaintiff has attached his relevant inmate
25
appeals and the prison’s responses thereto to various filings. (See Doc. No. 116 at 3-4 (referencing
26
the relevant materials in Plaintiff’s filings); Doc. No. 122 (Plaintiff’s objections to Report and
27
Recommendation with inmate grievance documents attached).)
28
///
4
10cv2642-AJB
1
B. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
2
Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks responses to a set of ten interrogatories and request for
3
production of documents dated December 6, 2011. (Doc. No. 147 at 5-7.) In his interrogatories and
4
request for production of documents, Plaintiff asks Defendants to state the duties of Defendant
5
Mace, Defendant Mills, Defendant Barra, Defendant White, Defendant Janda, and Defendant Jane
6
Doe; to state the name, titles, and duties of all staff members who had responsibility for responding
7
to inmate requests for medical attention on August 12, 2010 in A-5 segregation; to state the
8
procedure for conducting sick call in effect at Calipatria on August 12, 2010; to state the names,
9
titles, and duties of all staff members at Calipatria who are responsible for responding to,
10
investigating or deciding inmate grievances; and to state the procedure in effect at Calipatria on
11
August 12, 2010 for responding to, investigating and deciding inmate grievances based on a sexual
12
assault by staff. (Id.) Defendants objected to these interrogatories and requests for production,
13
asserting that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek irrelevant information, and are
14
premature given that the pleadings in this case are not in final form.2 (Doc. No. 155 at 18-23.)
15
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his set of interrogatories and
16
request for production of documents as being overbroad and unduly burdensome at this stage in the
17
litigation as any relevancy of the requests is outweighed by the burden and expense of production.
18
The job descriptions and duties of the named Defendants are not relevant to Plaintiff opposing
19
Defendants’ motions to dismiss his Third Amended Complaint and go more to merits discovery if
20
any of his Eighth Amendment claims survive the pending motions to dismiss. The Court notes that
21
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mills and White have been dismissed with prejudice and
22
dismissed without leave to amend, respectively. Additionally, Plaintiff has not named any Doe
23
defendants in his Third Amended Complaint, and therefore the job duties of “Jane Doe” are
24
irrelevant at this stage. In this same vein, Plaintiff’s interrogatories seeking the names, titles, and
25
26
27
28
2
In Defendant’s objections, Defendants include objections to interrogatories 11 and 12. (Doc.
No. 155 at 23-24.) These interrogatories are identical to Plaintiff’s request for production numbers 9
and 10, discussed supra section A. It is unclear from the parties’ filings if Plaintiff served the identical
request twice, or if Defendants’ objections merely tried to reorganize Plaintiff’s request for discovery.
As the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel request for production numbers 9 and 10, the Court
will not address the identical requests under this section.
5
10cv2642-AJB
1
duties of all staff members responsible for responding to requests for medical attention and for
2
responding to inmate grievances on August 12, 2010 are irrelevant at this time. The relevance of
3
Plaintiff’s request for sick call procedures and procedures for investigating and deciding inmate
4
grievances based on sexual assault by staff is also outweighed by the burden of production at this
5
time given the pending motions to dismiss.
6
C. Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion
7
Plaintiff also seeks to compel responses by Defendants to a California Pitchess3 motion for
8
discovery of CDCR materials regarding Defendants Barra and Mills. The Court denies Plaintiff’s
9
motion to compel to the extent it seeks responses to a Pitchess motion. Plaintiff’s attempt to
10
discover Pitchess information is premature at this stage in the proceedings, as it seeks information
11
that goes more to the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations than to defending a motion to dismiss on
12
failure to exhaust administrative remedies grounds. Plaintiff’s motion states that the materials
13
requested are necessary for the proper preparation of this case for trial. (Doc. No. 147-2 at 9.)
14
Therefore, the benefit of any of this discovery at this stage in the case is outweighed by the burden
15
and expense of production. For example, Plaintiff seeks all inmate complaints filed against either
16
Mills or Barra relating to allegations of use of excessive or unnecessary force and argues that a
17
substantial issue in the trial of this case will center on the use of excessive force by these
18
Defendants. (Doc. No. 147-2 at 2 & 7.) This discovery has no relation to whether Plaintiff properly
19
and timely filed his inmate appeal concerning the allegations in his complaint. Furthermore,
20
discovery into other inmate complaints against Mills and Barra for excessive force is irrelevant to
21
the claims and defenses at issue in this case, as the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim
22
against Mills and Barra for an Eighth Amendment violation based on sexual assault and excessive
23
force. (Doc. No. 134 at 17 ¶2.)
24
Additionally, the Court notes that a Pitchess motion is not the proper procedure for obtaining
25
production of peace officer personnel and internal affairs records in this case. In civil rights cases
26
brought under federal statutes, questions of privilege are resolved by federal law. Kerr v. U.S.
27
3
28
A Pitchess motion is the procedural method established in Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d
531 (1974), and later codified by California Penal Code § 832.7 and California Evidence Code §§ 1043
and 1046, that allows for discovery of otherwise privileged personnel records in California.
6
10cv2642-AJB
1
District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd on
2
procedural grounds, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Therefore, if this case proceeds to merits discovery, the
3
Court refers the parties to the procedures outlined in Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227
4
(S.D. Cal. 1993) for any requests for peace officer personnel and internal affairs records.
5
II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees
6
On August 15, 2012, nunc pro tunc to July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for costs and
7
attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 173.) In his request, Plaintiff seeks the recovery of costs and attorney
8
fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386.6 and 585(a). (Id.) Plaintiff states
9
that his request is based on any motions and the entry of default of the Defendants. (Id. at 1.)
10
Plaintiff appears to claim that he is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs because of the entry of
11
default of Defendant F. Mace. (Id. at 2.)
12
Plaintiff previously sought attorney’s fees and costs on the same grounds. (See Doc. No. 91.)
13
The Court denied Plaintiff’s request, explaining that no default has been entered as to Defendant
14
Mace and that Plaintiff failed to discuss how sections 386.6 and 585(a) of the California Code of
15
Civil Procedure apply to Plaintiff’s case. (Doc. No. 143 at 2.)
16
The Court again denies Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs for the same reasons.
17
No entry of default has been entered against Defendant Mace and Plaintiff’s conclusory request fails
18
to explain how the cited provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to his case,
19
which is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
20
III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue
21
On May 2, 2012, Defendants Janda, Mills, Barra and White filed a motion to dismiss
22
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 151.) On August 15, 2012, nunc pro tunc to July
23
18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for a continuance in order to procure additional evidence to
24
adequately respond to “the answer that will be given by defendants in this matter regarding claim
25
two.” (Doc. No. 180.) Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d).
26
Rule 56(d) provides:
27
If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot
present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering
the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.
28
7
10cv2642-AJB
1
“To merit a continuance for additional discovery under Rule 56([d]), the party opposing
2
summary judgment must file an affidavit specifying the facts that would be developed through
3
further discovery.” Baker v. Adventist Health, Inc., 260 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation
4
omitted). “The burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show
5
that the evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment.” Chance v. Pac–Tel
6
Teletrac, Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
7
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not addressed the applicability of Rule 56(d)’s provisions
8
regarding summary judgment to a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
9
Because Rule 56(d) is a subsection of the rules governing summary judgment, it is not applicable
10
to the instant proceedings. However, because the pending non-enumerated 12(b) motion allows the
11
Court to resolve factual disputes, the Court will interpret Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for an
12
extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss so that he may present all relevant
13
evidence as to his exhaustion of administrative remedies.
14
In his motion, Plaintiff provides an affidavit specifying what additional discovery he is
15
seeking in order to fully respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust
16
administrative remedies as to his second claim for relief for inadequate medical care. (Doc. No. 138
17
at 6.) Plaintiff seeks a copy of the investigation report prepared after he was questioned on August
18
27, 2012 about the alleged sexual assault. (Id.) Plaintiff states that he was told by the officers that
19
questioned him to wait to file an inmate appeal regarding being denied medical care until the
20
investigation was over and that they would provide him with a complete investigation report. (Id.)
21
In its order dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
22
indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Barra for failure to exhaust administrative
23
remedies, the Court noted that “Plaintiff had the opportunity and ability to file a timely grievance
24
but did not because he summarily alleges an ISU security officer told him he had to wait for the
25
completion of the ISU investigation.” (Doc. No. 134 at 12.) The Court noted that Plaintiff did not
26
provide the name of the security officer who gave him the information, did not provide an affidavit
27
or declaration stating these facts, and did not point to a relevant regulation that requires an inmate
28
to wait before filing a formal grievance. (Id. at 11.) The Court went on to conclude that “without
8
10cv2642-AJB
1
more facts and/or evidence to excuse his late filing, . . . Plaintiff failed to meet the procedural
2
requirements for exhaustion regarding his claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical
3
needs.” (Id.)
4
The Court, for good cause shown, grants Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file
5
an opposition in order to fully develop the record. Because Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s
6
claim for inadequate medical care for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a non-
7
enumerated 12(b) motion, Plaintiff must put forth specific facts in declarations, affidavits,
8
authenticated documents, or other evidence to contradict Defendants’ evidence to show he has
9
exhausted his administrative remedies or that some exception to exhaustion applies. See Wyatt v.
10
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 & n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). The document plaintiff seeks may provide
11
him with the name of the security officer he alleges told him he had to wait for the completion of
12
the ISU investigation before filing a grievance regarding inadequate medical care. Because this
13
document is potentially relevant to opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court orders
14
Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s request for the document. Defendants shall, no later than
15
October 22, 2012, file a response that addresses whether the ISU investigation report Plaintiff seeks
16
exists and any arguments as to why Defendants should not be ordered to produce it to Plaintiff.
17
After receiving Defendants’ response, the Court will set new deadlines for Plaintiff to file
18
a response in opposition to Defendants Janda, Mills, Barra and White’s motion to dismiss and for
19
Defendants to file a reply.
20
IV. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time to Respond
21
On August 15, 2012, nunc pro tunc to July 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a lengthy document
22
entitled “This is a[sic] objection and a challenge to the court order if one was filed on June 8, 2012.”
23
(Doc. No. 182.) In reviewing the 271 pages submitted by Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff seeks
24
an extension of time to file a response in opposition to Defendant Janda, Mills, Barra and White’s
25
motion to dismiss that was filed on May 2, 2012. Accordingly, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s
26
“objection” as an ex parte motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff states in his ex parte motion
27
that he did not receive a copy of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss until July 17, 2012 and has
28
attached a copy of the envelope sent by Defendants’ counsel that is marked “Received 7/17/12" and
9
10cv2642-AJB
1
signed by a sergeant. (Doc. No. 182 at 5-6.)
2
Although the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause and excusable neglect in failing
3
to timely file an opposition, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot given the Court’s ruling on
4
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to continue. (See supra at 8-9.) As noted above, the Court will set a new
5
deadline for Plaintiff’s response in opposition and Defendants’ reply after receiving and evaluating
6
Defendants’ ordered response to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the investigation report.
7
The Court also instructs Plaintiff that when he files his opposition as directed by future Court
8
order, it shall be in proper form that complies with the Court’s local rules or it will be rejected by
9
the Court. Plaintiff’s “objection” submission is extremely hard to follow and appears to intermix
10
points and authorities with exhibits. The memorandum of points and authorities of Plaintiff’s
11
opposition shall be no more than twenty-five (25) pages without leave of the Court. ACivLR 7.1.h.
12
Any documentary evidence, including declarations and other documents, shall be marked as separate
13
exhibits and shall be attached following the last page of Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and
14
authorities (i.e. Plaintiff should put forward all of his argument and points and authorities in
15
opposition in no more than 25 pages, followed by all the exhibits he cites to in order to support his
16
arguments). All exhibits shall be paged in consecutive numerical order and each page must show
17
the exhibit number either immediately above or below the page number.
18
Additionally, Plaintiff’s opposition shall have as a cover page to the exhibits a table of contents
19
indicating the page number of each of the succeeding exhibits. Id.
20
ACivLR 5.1.e.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: October 15, 2012
22
23
BERNARD G. SKOMAL
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
10
10cv2642-AJB
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?