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.

Harris v. Duc

March 8, 2010



Ahdante Harris ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner incarcerated at the California State Prison in San Luis Obispo County, California. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant V. Duc's responses to Plaintiff's Amended Interrogatories. At the time of the alleged constitutional violation, Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento.


Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim against the following defendants: Medical Director V. Duc ("Duc"), M.D.; Medical Administrator ("John Doe"); Chief Medical Officer, John Howard, M.D.; Chief Medical Officer Brett Williams, M.D.; and J. Martinson, R.N ("Martinson") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff claims that Defendants denied him his rights under the Eighth Amendment to receive adequate medical care and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.*fn1

Generally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered an injury when he fell from his bunk bed and injured his elbow. Plaintiff was schedule to have surgery to repair his injury, which was a "complete tear of the triceps tendon . . . with 4.22 cm of gap." Plaintiff was told that with immediate surgery he would completely recover. However, due to contractual problems with the hospital, Plaintiff's surgery was delayed.

Plaintiff later suffered a slip and fall accident. Due to his existing elbow injury, Plaintiff was unable to break his fall. He was taken to the prison clinic where Defendant Duc examined him and issued an emergency order that he be transported to Mercy Hospital of Folsom. Tests indicated there were no fractures, but there was a "possible acute compression fracture at L2, and defenerative disc disease at L4-5."

Upon Plaintiff's return to CSP-Sac, Defendant Martinson administered Plaintiff's medication but refused Plaintiff's request for a cane or wheelchair escort back to his housing unit. On July 19, 2005, Defendant Duc prescribed the use of a cane for three weeks and a back brace. Both devices were issued the same day. On July 20, 2005, prison staff informed Plaintiff that his prescription had expired and that if he wished to continue the medication he would have to ask the building officer to contract the clinic. Defendant Duc denied the request, and Plaintiff submitted a health care service request.

From August to December of 2005, Plaintiff made several health care service requests, which were either denied or delayed. Plaintiff's surgery was finally approved but was rescheduled for a later date. MRI's were ordered but could not be performed because of Plaintiff's large size.

On February 8, 2010, the Court again granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint Plaintiff's in order to include new factual allegations regarding the medical treatment he received by physicians employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Plaintiff alleges that from July 19, 2005, through January 9, 2006, he submitted nine administrative grievances regarding his medical care, his slip and fall accident, and the alleged delays and improper responses to his previous administrative grievances. Plaintiff claims that he received responses to his grievances from Duc that contained false statements and that many of his appeals were rejected as untimely. Plaintiff claims that based on these facts, Defendants Duc, John Doe #1, John Howard, M.D., Brett Williams, M.D., and J. Martinson, R.N. violated his Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care.

Plaintiff originally moved to compel Defendant V. Duc's responses to Plaintiff's first set of Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, which the Court denied on July 6, 2009. The Court ruled, inter alia, that the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Interrogatories were overly broad and it would be too burdensome for Defendant to comply with the requests. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, at 3-4. Plaintiff then brought a Motion to Reconsider that order, which the Court denied but construed as a permissible Amended Motion to Compel because, in essence, Plaintiff had submitted revised interrogatories purportedly remedying the issue of overbroadness that he requested the Court consider. See Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Construing Papers as New Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court gave Defendant an opportunity to file an opposition; Defendant filed an opposition; and the Court now rules on the Amended Motion.


A party may serve a request on another party to produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in the possession, custody or control of the party served. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). The party receiving the request shall serve a written response within 30 days, either stating that inspection will be permitted or objecting to the request and stating the reasons for the objection. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b).

The party making the request may seek a court order to compel disclosure when the responding party objects to the requests or otherwise fails to respond to ...

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.