Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cotton v. Runnels

April 29, 2009



Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are several motions filed by the parties, each of which will be addressed below.


Plaintiff has moved the court for an order compelling further discovery responses from defendants. In this regard, plaintiff asserts that on December 4, 2007, he served defendants with his first request for production of documents and on December 9, 2007, served defendant Salenger with his first set of interrogatories. (Mot. to Compel (MTC), Pl.'s Aff. at 1.) Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to timely respond to his discovery requests and have therefore waived any objections thereto.

Defendants argue that their responses to plaintiff's discovery requests were timely served. According to defendants, plaintiff's interrogatories were served on December 9, 2007, and their responses were served on January 22, 2008. (Opp'n at 2.) Defendants contend that plaintiff's request for production of documents was served on December 12, 2007, and the production in response thereto was served on January 15, 2008. (Id.) Defendants argue that their discovery responses were served on plaintiff within the forty-five day time period provided for by the court's discovery order of September 10, 2007. (Id.) The court agrees. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied I. Production of Documents Requests No. 4, 7, 8, and 9

Plaintiff next argues that defendants' objections to his specific discovery requests based on relevancy, are "frivolous." (MTC at 3.) The court has reviewed plaintiff's motion as well as defendants' opposition thereto and concludes that no order should issue compelling the production of additional documents. For the most part, plaintiff seeks production of his medical records and documents from his central file relating to his attempted suicide. Plaintiff has access to those documents at his institution of confinement upon his request.

The court also finds that many of plaintiff's specific discovery requests are overly broad, vague, or seek the production of documents that lack relevance to this action. For instance, in request for production number 7, plaintiff seeks "[a]ll incident reports, medical reports, that... refer to incidents of inmate overdoses... at High Desert State Prison since its opening to the present." (Opp'n at 4; MTC, Ex. 4.) Likewise, plaintiff's request for production number 8 seeks "[a]ll documents... since the opening of H.D.S.P. that contain, mention, construe,... about safety conditions relating to risk of inmates and unlicensed staff alike being in possession of controlled drugs/medications...." (Id.) Finally, in his request for production number 9 plaintiff seeks "[a]ll other documents, items of evidence... that relate to allegations made in plaintiff's complaint...." (Opp'n at 5; MTC, Ex. 4.) These requests are clearly overbroad and no order compelling further responses from defendants is appropriate.

Plaintiff argues that the documents he seeks would provide proof of motive, opportunity, intent... plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." (MTC at 5.) However, plaintiff is reminded that in his Eighth Amendment claim before the court he merely alleges that defendants acted in a manner that encouraged, and failed to prevent, his attempted suicide and that to substantiate that claim plaintiff must establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The documents plaintiff seeks would not aid him in satisfying his burden of proof. Plaintiff's conclusory argument that the documents are relevant to this action is unpersuasive.

II. Interrogatories 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15

These interrogatories were directed by plaintiff to defendant Dr. Salenger who was allegedly "a member of the treatment team that acted to discharge Plaintiff on February 2, 2004[.]" (Opp'n at 7, Response to Interrogatory No. 6.) The court has reviewed Dr. Salenger's responses to the interrogatories in question and finds those responses to be adequate. In those responses, Dr. Salenger confirms that he was part of the clinical treatment team that discharged plaintiff from the Treatment Center on February 4, 2004, and that he became plaintiff's treating clinician after he was returned to the Treatment Center later that same day. Although Dr. Salenger has no present recollection of plaintiff and his treatment of plaintiff, he has attempted to respond to the interrogatories in question by providing as much information as possible regarding plaintiff's discharge on the date in question. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to these interrogatories will be denied.


Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.


The scheduling order in this case was filed on October 23, 2008. Defendants have moved to modify that scheduling order. (Doc. No. 85.) In light of the findings and recommendations filed concurrently with this order, the court will vacate the dates for the filing of pretrial statements, for pretrial conference and for trial. In addition, the court will grant defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order to allow the filing of dispositive motions within forty-five ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.