Bolden v. Arana
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:17-cv-05607
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Bolden v. Arana, Judge Hamilton denied Bolden’s motion to compel, granted his late-reply motion, and denied his relief motion.
Willie Bolden’s discovery efforts in his retaliation case against Correctional Officer S. Arana; the order did not decide the retaliation claim itself.
What happened
In Bolden v. Arana, Willie Bolden, a state prisoner representing himself, claimed that Correctional Officer S. Arana retaliated after Bolden threatened to file a grievance about a cell search and confiscated items.
Bolden asked the court to require Arana to provide more information and documents, including education and lawsuit history, disciplinary reports, inmate appeals, complaints, and records related to the cell search. The court denied the motion to compel because some requests had already been answered, some were irrelevant or too broad, and others raised privacy, privilege, or lack-of-document concerns.
Judge Hamilton granted Bolden’s motion to file a late reply, denied his motion for relief because Arana had timely opposed the motion, and denied the motion to compel.
The detailed version
- Bolden v. Arana · No. 4:17-cv-05607
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 17, 2019
Background
Willie Bolden, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer S. Arana. Bolden alleged that Arana searched his cell and confiscated items. After Bolden said he would file an administrative grievance if the items were not returned, Bolden alleged that Arana threatened him. Bolden further alleged that, after he was initially found not guilty at a disciplinary hearing, Arana spoke with the hearing officer and Bolden was found guilty. The court had ordered service of Bolden’s retaliation claim.
Motion to Compel
Bolden moved to compel discovery. The court noted that he had not properly completed the required informal meet-and-confer process because he did not identify the specific discovery responses at issue before filing the motion. The court nevertheless addressed each request.
The court found that several interrogatory requests were moot because Arana had provided answers. It denied requests seeking Arana’s education and degree information because that information was not relevant to the retaliation claim. It denied a request for information about every lawsuit Arana had been involved in during the prior ten years because it was overbroad and Bolden had not shown that the litigation would bear on this case.
The court also denied requests asking Arana to identify denials of facts, defenses, witnesses, and related documents. It relied on the Prison Litigation Reform Act provision allowing a defendant to waive a reply to the complaint and noted that Arana denied that the retaliation occurred. The court found that Bolden’s request for more detailed answers about requests for admission did not explain why further answers were required.
For document requests, the court denied a request for ten years of settlements and verdicts because it was overbroad and unrelated to the case. It found nothing to compel regarding a personnel-file request because Arana said there were no responsive documents. It denied requests for all disciplinary reports Arana had authored and all inmate appeals naming him because they implicated other inmates’ privacy and, in the case of the appeals, were also overbroad. It denied a request for citizen complaints because Bolden had not shown how complaints by nonprisoners would bear on the case. Finally, it denied requests for documents concerning the cell search and the complaint’s factual allegations because Arana said he was unaware of responsive documents and had waived a reply under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Other Motions and Disposition
The court granted Bolden’s motion for leave to file a late reply and reviewed the filing. It denied Bolden’s motion for relief because Arana had timely filed an opposition. The court denied Bolden’s motion to compel.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.