Frost v. Ducart

Background

Shawn Kevin Frost, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint alleged that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison retaliated against him after he filed a prison appeal on July 6, 2016. Frost alleged that he was moved three days later into housing without a seat or stool, desk or table, electrical power, and with a broken sink. He alleged that he remained in that housing for about five months.

The court previously found cognizable Frost’s claims that some defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and that other defendants failed to correct the alleged violations after reviewing his grievance. The court dismissed, without prejudice, a supervisory-liability claim against Warden Clark E. Ducart. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was pending, but the court stated that it would resolve that motion in a separate written order.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Frost’s first motion was titled a request for an immediate temporary restraining order. Because the defendants had an opportunity to respond, the court construed it as a motion for a preliminary injunction. Frost’s motion alleged that unnamed correctional staff at California State Prison-Sacramento disclosed documents describing his kidnapping and sex-crime convictions to other inmates, creating health and safety concerns.

The defendants argued that these allegations concerned events occurring after Frost’s transfer from Pelican Bay and were not part of the claims in this action. They also argued that the unnamed staff were not parties and that the named defendants lacked authority to control those staff. The court agreed that the motion concerned new allegations against unidentified staff at California State Prison-Sacramento, while the action arose from alleged incidents at Pelican Bay. The court therefore found that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the requested injunction and DENIED Frost’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Motion to Compel

Frost’s second motion was construed as a motion to compel discovery, meaning a request for a court order requiring an opposing party to provide discovery. The defendants argued that Frost had not served them with a request for admission asking them to admit the genuineness of the documents attached to his motion.

The court explained that a party seeking court intervention in a discovery dispute must first identify the specific dispute and attempt to resolve it with the opposing party. The court found that Frost had not served the defendants with the asserted request for admission and had not met and conferred with them. It concluded that he could not show that the defendants had failed to respond to a discovery request and DENIED the motion to compel. To the extent Frost separately asked the court to order the defendants to participate in discovery, the court also DENIED that request as unnecessary because the parties had already been told that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The court DENIED both pending motions and terminated Docket Nos. 22 and 24. The court did not decide the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this order; it stated that motion would be addressed separately.

Judge

The provided opinion text shows only a partially readable signature, so the judge’s full name cannot be stated confidently.