Felder v. Brennan

• Court: District Court, D. Guam
• Decided: October 14, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00140
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 7 DOMINICK LAMAR FELDER, ) CIVIL CASE NO. 19-00140 8 ) Plaintiff, ) 9 ) vs. ) ORDER 10 ) 1. Denying Motion for Order to Show SAMANTHA BRENNAN, [Former] Director, ) Cause (ECF No. 17) and 11 Department of Corrections Guam - Individual ) 2. Denying Motion for Extension of and Official Capacity, et al., ) Time to Complete Discovery 12 ) (ECF No. 22) Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 15 This matter is before the court on two motions filed by the Plaintiff: (1) a Motion for Order 16 to Show Cause, ECF No. 17, and (2) a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, ECF 17 No. 22. The court issues the following Order denying the Plaintiff’s motions. 18 1. Motion for Order to Show Cause 19 On November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated at the Guam Department of 20 Corrections (“DOC”), filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, asserting that he was moved to a 21 more restrictive housing unit at DOC without any explanation or due process in retaliation for filing 22 the Complaint herein against the Defendants. Mot. for OSC, ECF No. 17. The Plaintiff requested 23 that the court issue an order to protect him against further retaliation from the Defendants and other 24 DOC personnel and prevent them from “arbitrarily stripping [P]laintiff of his rights and privileges 25 without due process or just cause.” Id. at 3. 26 On February 13, 2020, the Defendants filed a response to the motion. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF 27 No. 26. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s transfer to the more restrictive housing unit was 28 not done to retaliate against him but for his protection and safety. Id. at ¶5. The reasons for the 1 transfer were subsequently explained to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants state that he “agreed that 2 it was best that he remain where he is.” Id. at ¶8. Attached to the Opposition was the Declaration 3 of Major Antone F. Aguon, and appended to the declaration was a written statement by the Plaintiff 4 confirming that he did not want to return to his former housing unit at Post 17. See ECF No. 26-1, 5 page 16. 6 The Plaintiff never filed a response to the Defendants’ Opposition, although the court gave 7 the Plaintiff until March 3, 2020, to file a reply. See Order, ECF No. 24. 8 Based on the information provided in the Defendants’ Opposition, the court finds the 9 Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause to be moot and accordingly denies said motion. 10 2. Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 11 On January 28, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete 12 Discovery (the “Motion to Extend”). ECF No. 22. Plaintiff requested an additional 60-day period 13 to file responses to discovery requests propounded by the Defendants. The Plaintiff asserted that the 14 extension was necessary because his transfer to the more restrictive housing unit made “it difficult 15 to access or receive information” and because the Westlaw computer terminal at DOC has been 16 inoperable. Id. at ¶¶3-4. The Plaintiff also renewed his request that the court appoint counsel to 17 assist him. Id. at ¶6. He says “he does not fully understand the legal responses required of him” and 18 he “does not understand how to accurately answer” the Defendants’ discovery requests. Id. 19 On February 13, 2020, the Defendants filed an Opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF 20 No. 25. The Defendants stated that on December 27, 2019, the Plaintiff was personally served with 21 the following discovery requests: (a) Defendants’ First Interrogatories to Plaintiff, (b) Defendants’ 22 First Request for Production of Documents, and (c), Defendants’ First Request for Admissions. Id. 23 at ¶1 and Exs. A-C thereto. The Defendants contended that most of the discovery requested would 24 entail the same information and production of documents the Plaintiff would have had to voluntarily 25 produce as initial disclosures but for the fact that the instant proceeding is exempt from the initial 26 disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at ¶6. See also 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). The Defendants maintained that the discovery sought is “directly 28 relevant to the evidence the [P]laintiff would have to produce in order to respond to a motion for Dominick Lamar Feder v. Samantha Brennan, ete. ef al., Civil Case No. 19-00140 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion to Extend page 3 of 3 1 || summary judgment or prove his case at trial.” Jd. The Defendants asserted that the information 2 || sought is “critical” so that the Defendants can adequately prepare their defense against the claims 3 || brought by the Plaintiff. 7d. The Defendants requested that the court order the Plaintiff to respond 4 || to their discovery requests no later than seven days from the date of the court’s order. /d. at 7. 5 The Plaintiff did not file any response to the Defendants’ Opposition. 6 The court has reviewed the discovery requests propounded by the Defendants. The court 7 || concurs with the Defendants that the discovery requests only seek relevant information within the 8 || Plaintiff's possession or control. The information sought does not require him to conduct 9 || computerized legal research in order to respond to the discovery requests. Accordingly, to the extent 10 || the Plaintiff has not yet responded to the discovery requests, the court orders the Plaintiff to provide 11 || the Defendants with his responses no later than October 30, 2020. The court warns the Plaintiff that 12 || failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions as authorized under 13 || Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 Finally, with regard to the Plaintiff’s renewed! request for the appointment of an attorney, 15 || the court previously advised the Plaintiff that “[g]enerally, a person has no right to counsel in civil 16 || actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). An appointment of counsel ina civil 17 || case requires a court to find that “exceptional circumstances” exist. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 18 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, a “finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 19 || evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to 20 || articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. 21 || Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 22 || Cir. 1983)). Here, the court finds a lack of exceptional circumstances to warrant the need for 23 || appointed counsel. 24 Accordingly, the court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend and his request for the 25 || appointment of counsel. & /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood a Chief Judge 27 ye □ & Dated: Oct 14, 2020 28 ' On January 30, 2020, Judge Manibusan denied the Plaintiff’ s Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Order, ECF No. 23.