Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Sean Shields v. Sergeant Koelling

April 23, 2012

SEAN SHIELDS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SERGEANT KOELLING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The defendants are Sergeants Koelling and Martinez. Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2009, defendants forced plaintiff to move to an upper bunk even though plaintiff had a lower bunk chrono. Plaintiff later fell from the upper bunk and suffered injuries.

Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel filed February 14, 2012. The pending motion was filed pursuant to an order filed January 17, 2012. In the January 17, 2012 order, the undersigned addressed plaintiff's motions to compel filed September 7, 2011, and September 12, 2011. The undersigned granted these motions to compel as to request for admissions, set one, nos. 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff with further responses to these requests within twenty-one days.

Plaintiff's motions to compel filed in September 2011 also addressed interrogatories, requests for production of documents and a request for admissions, set two. Plaintiff argued that defendants had failed to respond to these requests. In their opposition to the September motions to compel, defendants informed the court that they were now serving plaintiff with responses to these requests. The January 17, 2012 order granted plaintiff thirty days to file a motion to compel addressing defendants' response to his interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admissions, set two.

The pending motion to compel addresses the matters discussed above. For the following reasons, plaintiff's February 14, 2012 motion to compel is granted in part.

II. Request for Production of Documents, Set One

The reach of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, which governs requests for production, "extends to all relevant documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or other property." Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-473 (1998), citing 8A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381. Rule 34 does require that the party upon whom a request is served "be in possession, custody, or control of the requested item." Id., at 473, citing Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 293 (D. Nev.1991). Under Rule 34, "[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand. [Citation.] The party seeking production of the documents . . . bears the burden of proving that the opposing party has such control." U.S. Int'l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) See also In re Citric Acid Lit., 191 F.3d 1090, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing the same issue in a Rule 45 context).

Request Nos. 1-7

Plaintiff objects to defendants' responses to request nos. 1-7. Defendants objected that none of the documents sought in these requests were in their possession, custody or control. These requests are set forth herein:

Request No. 1: Institutional Operations Plan ("IOP"), California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California State Prison-Solano, Vacaville, CA, Plan for: Inmate Double Celling, Number CSPS-L3-08-050, Dated November 2008.

Request No. 2: IOP, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California State Prison-Solano, Vacaville, CA, Plan for: Disability Placement Program, Number: CSPS-CS/MD-08-106.

Request for Production No. 3: IOP, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California State Prison-Solano, Vacaville, CA, Plan for Disability Placement Program, Number CSPS/MD-10-106.

Request No. 4: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements, and practices in effect in April 2009 for SOL Correctional and Medical staff relating to Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This request includes but is not limited to all policies, procedures, or practices generated by CDCR as well as policies, procedures, IOP's, DOM Supplements or practices specific to SOL.

Request No. 5: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements and practices in effect in April 2009 for SOL Correctional and Medical staff relating to Disabilities Placement Program ("DPP"). This request includes but is not limited to all policies, procedures, or practices specific to SOL.

Request No. 6: Any and all documents that relate to policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements, and practices in effect in April 2009 for SOL Correctional and Medical staff relating to Disability Not Impacting Placement, Mobility Impaired ("DNM").

This request includes but is not limited to all policies, procedures, or practices generated by CDCR as well as policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements, or practices specific to SOL.

Request No. 7: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements and practices in effect in April 2009 for SOL Correctional and Medical staff relating to Comprehensive Accommodation Chronos ("CAC"), and or Medical Chronos. This request included but is not limited to all policies, procedures, IOPs, DOM Supplements or practices specific to SOL.

In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants state that they have access to current policies and procedures of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") while on the job. However, defendants state that they do not have access to the policies and procedures from 2008-2009 that plaintiff seeks in request nos. 1-7. Defendants state that plaintiff could obtain these documents by way of a subpoena to CDCR. Defendants state that their counsel in the instant action does not represent CDCR.

In the instant case, plaintiff has sued defendants in their individual capacity only. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants are Correctional Sergeants, as opposed to prison officials with higher ranking, such as the Warden. For these reasons, the undersigned accepts defendants' representation that they do not have possession, custody or control of the documents sought.*fn1

Accordingly, the motion to compel as to request no. 1-7 is denied.

Request Nos. 8-13

Plaintiff objects to defendants' responses to request nos. 8-13. Defendants responded that they did not have possession of the documents sought in these requests, which concerned training. Defendants stated that they believed the documents sought were maintained by the CDCR. These requests are set forth herein:

Request No. 8: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on ADA. The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

Request No. 9: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on DPP. The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

Request No. 10: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on inmates categorized as DNM. The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

Request No. 11: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono ("CAC"), or Medical Chronos in general. The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

Request No. 12: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on the Disability and Effective Communication System ("DECS"). The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

Request No. 13: Any and all records of training that has been provided to each defendant on the DECS Roster Reports. The time frame for this discovery request is the time each defendant became employed by the CDCR to the present.

In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants state that they do not maintain copies of their training records. Defendants state that the training they go through is required, and tracked by CDCR, as part of their employment. Defendants state that plaintiff could obtain these documents by requesting them from CDCR.*fn2

Because defendants are sued in their individual capacities, the undersigned accepts their representation that they do not have possession, custody or control of these documents. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to these requests for production of documents is denied.

Request Nos. 14-18

Defendants objected that request nos. 14-18 were "very broad." Defendants also stated that they did not possess the documents sought, which concerned training. Defendants believed that these documents were maintained by the CDCR. These requests are set forth herein:

Request no. 14: Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each defendant that refer or relate to training, policies or procedures on ADA.

Request No. 15: Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each defendant that refer or relate to training, policies or procedures on DPP.

Request No. 16: Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each defendant that refer or relate to training, policies or procedures on DNM.

Request No. 17: Any and all documents received, read or reviewed by each defendant that refer or relate to training, policies or procedures on CACs.

Request No. 18: Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each defendant that refer or relate to training, policies or procedures, on Inmate Housing Assignments, including but not limited to necessary considerations.

The undersigned agrees with defendants that request nos. 14-18 are over broad. Not every document sought in these requests is relevant to the instant action. In addition, defendants represent that the documents plaintiff seeks in these requests are not in their possession, custody or control. Because defendants' objections have merit, the motion to compel as to request for production of documents nos. 14-18 is denied.

III. Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

Plaintiff objects to defendants' responses to his request for production of documents, set two, which contained three requests. These requests and defendants' responses are set forth herein:

Request No. 1: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures and practices in effect in April 2009 for SOL Medical and Correctional Staff regarding Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Log Books kept in each housing unit for tracking qualified inmates with qualified ADA disabilities. Response to Request No. 1: There are Log Books indicating Inmates's with ADA disabilities. Defendants do not have any policy or procedure documents in their possession, custody or control.

Request No. 2: Any and all formal and informal written complaints (including but not limited to 602 forms) against any defendant, alleging violations of failure to accommodate qualified disabilities, under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), and or failure to follow doctor's orders, and failure to honor Comprehensive Accommodation Chronos.

Response to Request No. 2: Defendant Koelling: I am not aware of any complaints against me. Defendant Martinez: I am not aware of any complaints against me. Request No. 3: Any and all documents received, read or reviewed by each defendant that refer to or relate to Act ADA Log Books kept in each housing unit for tracking qualified inmates with qualified ADA disabilities.

Response to Request No. 3: There are Log Books indicating Inmates with ADA disabilities. Defendants do not have any documents in their possession, custody or control that refer or relate to these Log Books.

Regarding request no. 1, in their opposition to the motion to compel defendants state that plaintiff is seeking policies from 2009. Defendants state that they do not have policies from 2009 in their possession. Defendants also state that if there are policies for their review, they do not know if these were the CDCR policies in effect in ...


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.