Perdomo v. Plumber

Background

Carlos Perdomo, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously ruled that his amended complaint stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Muntez, Chief Deputy Warden R. Binkele, and Correctional Administrator E. Borla. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was fully briefed by April 14, 2020.

Discovery motion

Perdomo served discovery requests on February 20, 2020, concerning the issues raised in the summary-judgment motion. He later moved for compliance with discovery and requested sanctions, including outright dismissal of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. Perdomo asserted that defendants filed their reply to the summary-judgment motion on April 13, 2020, instead of complying with discovery by a new deadline of April 22, 2020. The opinion states that defendants responded to all outstanding discovery on April 22. Perdomo acknowledged receiving the responses but argued that he had inadequate time to review them before opposing summary judgment.

Ruling

The court had separately granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and referred the matter to settlement proceedings. Because of that separate ruling and the apparent completion of the outstanding discovery responses, the court denied Perdomo’s motion to compel and for sanctions as moot. The order terminated Docket No. 51.

The court also advised Perdomo that he could continue discovery to identify the individuals referred to as “Plumber(s) Doe 1-5,” who had been dismissed without prejudice at the outset of the action. If he identified them, he could move for permission to amend the complaint to name them and issue summonses. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.