Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Alan Dean Hill, incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His operative first amended complaint was filed on August 11, 2025. On screening, the court found a cognizable First and Fourteenth Amendment denial-of-access-to-courts claim against Defendant Cemo and a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Defendant Balderas, but no other cognizable claims. Defendants answered on March 26, 2026. The court's April 21 discovery and scheduling order, or DSO, originally set a September 4, 2026 discovery cutoff and a December 4, 2026 pretrial-motion deadline.
Hill timely moved on August 10, 2026 to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production signed and dated February 16, 2026. The order states that he sent those requests while he was in El Dorado County Jail. He attached the requests and alleged a pattern of retaliation and discovery interference in his other cases, asking the court to notice those proceedings. Defendants responded that they had never been served and first saw the requests with his motion. They noted that the requests predated both their answer and the DSO. Hill filed a second motion on September 23, which the court construed as a reply. The discovery dispute concerned the surviving court-access claim and a February 11, 2025 cell search.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied both motions without prejudice. Rule 37(a)(3)(B) permits an order compelling discovery when a party fails to answer interrogatories under Rule 33 or produce documents under Rule 34. The movant must identify the requests and disputed responses, explain the asserted deficiencies and why objections are unjustified, and establish relevance; the opposing party then must support its objections or show why discovery should be prohibited. Here, the requests predated the answer by one month and the DSO by more than two months. The court found that Hill appeared to have drafted and mailed them after statutory screening but did not serve them after defendants appeared. Because defendants were unaware of the requests before the motion, they could not have failed to respond as Rules 33 and 34 require, and the court had no responses or objections to evaluate.
The court nevertheless afforded Hill the great leniency due an incarcerated pro se litigant in discovery under Draper v. Coombs. It examined the attached interrogatories and production requests and found them relevant, properly captioned with this case number, and concerned with the cell search underlying the cognizable court-access claim against Cemo. Rather than leave Hill without another opportunity to pursue that discovery, the court directed defendants to construe his motion as proper service and provide written responses within 45 days. It also modified the DSO: discovery and motions to compel are due by January 19, 2027; amended pleadings or motions to amend by February 19, 2027; and other pretrial motions by April 21, 2027. All other DSO provisions remain effective.
Key Takeaways
- Hill's motions to compel were denied without prejudice because the record did not show that defendants had received the requests or failed to provide responses that Rule 37 could address.
- The denial did not end the discovery dispute: the court treated the motion and its attachments as proper service and ordered defendants to provide written responses within 45 days.
- The court found the attached requests relevant to the surviving court-access claim against Cemo and applied the great-leniency principle for incarcerated pro se litigants rather than merely enforcing the service defect.
- The scheduling modification separately extended the discovery and compel-motion deadline to January 19, 2027, the amendment deadline to February 19, 2027, and the other pretrial-motion deadline to April 21, 2027.
- The order resolved discovery procedure only; it did not decide the merits of Hill's court-access or procedural-due-process claims.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes a defective Rule 37 motion from a forfeited opportunity to obtain discovery. Without proof of receipt, responses, or objections, there was no failure to answer or produce for the court to compel. Yet the court used its discovery-management discretion to examine the attachments, confirm their relevance, and establish service through the motion itself.
For incarcerated pro se litigants, the decision shows how procedural leniency can operate alongside scheduling controls. Hill received a concrete response deadline and additional time to pursue discovery, amend pleadings, and file pretrial motions, while defendants received a defined obligation to respond rather than an adverse finding based on requests they had not seen.