Diggs v. Clenindimd
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-06517
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Diggs v. Davis, Judge Chen denied Diggs’s miscellaneous motions about default, medical records, mail, and administrative directives, leaving summary judgment pending.
Michael Laroy Diggs’s requests for default, medical records, an injunction concerning mail, and administrative directives were denied. The defendants’ summary-judgment motion remained pending. The order did not impose an injunction on Patton State Hospital or its employees.
What happened
Michael Laroy Diggs, a self-represented prisoner at Patton State Hospital, sued Amy Davis and others over events at Napa State Hospital, where he had previously been housed. He filed two miscellaneous motions while the defendants’ summary-judgment motion remained pending.
The court denied both motions. It rejected Diggs’s requests for default and medical records because the defendants had received an extension and Diggs had not met the requirements for a document-production order. It also denied his request concerning mail because the people and facility involved were not parties to the case and were outside the court’s jurisdiction; that denial was without prejudice to filing a separate action in the Central District of California. Diggs must first try to obtain the medical records and administrative directives through discovery before seeking a qualifying order to compel production.
In Diggs v. Davis, Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that Docket Nos. 46 and 48 were denied and that the defendants’ summary-judgment motion would be addressed in a later order.
The detailed version
- Diggs v. Clenindimd · No. 3:19-cv-06517
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
Michael Laroy Diggs, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action concerning events and omissions at Napa State Hospital, where he had previously been housed. At the time of this order, he was an inmate at Patton State Hospital. The court considered two miscellaneous motions, Docket Nos. 46 and 48. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was still pending and was not decided in this order.
Motion for default and documents
In Docket No. 46, Diggs objected to the defendants’ request for more time, asked the court to enter default instead of allowing that extension, and sought production of his medical records.
The court denied the motion. It explained that the court had already granted the defendants’ extension before receiving Diggs’s motion. Default was also unwarranted because the defendants had actively litigated the case.
The court further held that Diggs had not shown the circumstances necessary for an order requiring the defendants to produce documents. The court noted uncertainty about whether an actual discovery dispute existed and, if one did exist, said Diggs had not described efforts to resolve it. Before seeking a motion to compel, a party must attempt in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute and explain those efforts. The court stated that Diggs could use the discovery process to try to obtain his medical records and could file a motion to compel only if those efforts failed and the motion met the stated requirements.
Motion concerning mail and administrative directives
In Docket No. 48, Diggs alleged that people at Patton State Hospital were opening mail addressed to him by the court. He sought an injunction—an order requiring conduct to stop—and requested production of all administrative directives from Napa State Hospital.
The court denied the motion. It agreed with the defendants that the people Diggs accused of opening his mail were not defendants in this case. Because Patton State Hospital and its employees were not parties to the action, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to enjoin their activities. The court specified that this denial was without prejudice to Diggs filing an action in the Central District of California seeking an injunction against the alleged mail tampering.
As to the administrative directives, the court said Diggs first had to try to obtain them through discovery. If those efforts failed, he could then file a motion to compel that satisfied the requirements described in the order.
Disposition
The court denied Diggs’s motions in Docket Nos. 46 and 48. The order disposed of those motions but did not decide the defendants’ pending summary-judgment motion. Judge Edward M. Chen stated that the summary-judgment motion would be addressed in a future order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.