Bess v. Peffley

Background

Daniel Bess, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, brought civil-rights claims under Section 1983 against J. Peffley, identified in the opinion as a former prison guard at Bess’s facility. Bess alleged that Peffley threatened him to obtain confidential information about security-threat-group members and affiliates. Bess also alleged that, after he refused and said he intended to file an administrative grievance, Peffley retaliated by placing false confidential memorandums in Bess’s record that identified him as a security-threat-group affiliate and made him unsuitable for parole.

Bess alleged violations of the First and Eighth Amendments. The court had previously granted Peffley summary judgment on part of Bess’s First Amendment retaliation claim and denied summary judgment on Bess’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court also allowed part of the First Amendment retaliation claim to continue based on Bess’s alleged intent to file a grievance.

The Admissions and the Motion

Bess served requests for admission on May 13, 2022. On June 6, 2022, Peffley admitted two requests. Request No. 8 asked Peffley to admit that he asked Bess for information about members, associates, and affiliates of several security-threat groups. Request No. 9 asked Peffley to admit that Bess refused to provide that information.

Peffley’s former counsel signed the admissions. On the same day, Peffley verified interrogatory responses under penalty of perjury. In those responses, he identified other requests as disputed but did not identify Requests Nos. 8 and 9 as anything other than unqualified admissions.

Peffley’s new counsel discovered inconsistencies between the admissions and Peffley’s anticipated testimony while preparing for Peffley’s September 10, 2024 deposition. Fact discovery closed three days later. Peffley moved on May 27, 2025, to withdraw or amend the admissions, about eight months after the alleged inconsistency was discovered and about three years after the admissions were made.

Rule 36(b) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) permits a court to allow a party to withdraw or amend an admission if two conditions are met: doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits, and doing so would not prejudice the other party in maintaining or defending the case. Even when both conditions are met, the decision remains discretionary. The court may also consider whether the moving party showed good cause for delaying the motion.

Court’s Analysis

Presentation of the Merits

The court held that the first condition was not met. As to the First Amendment claim, the admissions did not establish whether Peffley retaliated against Bess for expressing an intent to file a grievance. The admissions therefore did not eliminate presentation of that claim’s merits.

As to the Eighth Amendment personal-safety claim, the admissions provided some foundational facts but did not establish the claim or significantly restrict Peffley’s ability to defend against allegations concerning what happened after the request for information and Bess’s refusal. The court concluded that the admissions did not effectively end the litigation or prevent Peffley from presenting a defense.

Prejudice to Bess

The court also held that Bess had shown prejudice. Bess had reasonably relied on the admissions for more than three years, and discovery had already closed. The opinion states that Bess structured his litigation strategy around the admissions and would face a sudden need to obtain evidence concerning facts that Peffley had previously admitted. With trial approaching, the court found that allowing withdrawal or amendment would prejudice Bess.

Delay and Good Cause

The court further held that Peffley had not shown good cause for the delay. The court stated that Peffley was responsible for verifying his interrogatory responses and should have reviewed the requests for admission before verifying facts that addressed other requests. The court also found that, even if Peffley did not know about the erroneous admissions until preparing for his deposition, he waited an additional eight months before seeking relief and offered no justifiable reason for that delay.

Disposition

The court denied Peffley’s motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. It separately granted Peffley’s renewed administrative motion to seal. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 105 and 116.