Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woodroffe v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 8, 2014

STATE OF OREGON, et al., Defendants.

Robert Woodroffe, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, 82911 Beach Access Road, Umatilla, OR 97882-9419. Plaintiff pro se.

Shannon M. Vincent, Oregon Department of Justice, Trial Division, CLS, 1162 Court Street, N.E., Salem, OR 97301-0346. Of Attorneys for Defendants Brian Belleque, Michelle Dodson, Polly Stuart, Zach Erdman, Mary H. Williams, David E. Leith, Kristina Manley, Eugene Reding, Jana Russell, Helene Lichtman, Christy Henning, Brian Walker, Robert Real, Al Hannon, James Eastwood, Jeff Premo, Denise Parker, Frank Serrano, Stan Czerniak, Patricia Carning, R. N., Patricia Flores, R.N, Randy Geer, Bill Doman, Steve Spang, Dr. Steve Shelton, and Dr. Garth Gulick.

Gerald L. Warren, Law Office of Gerald Warren, 901 Capitol Street N.E, Salem, OR 97301. Attorney for Defendant Coleen Clemente.


MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert Woodroffe, an inmate incarcerated in the State of Oregon's prison system, filed this action against approximately 60 defendants, alleging numerous claims under state and federal law. The Court previously dismissed several claims and numerous defendants. See ECF 15, 27, 107. The remaining claims are Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 for violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on Plaintiff's allegations that: (1) Defendants provided constitutionally-deficient medical care for Plaintiff's knee and coccyx pain, blood loss, and mental health needs, asserted against Defendants Dr. Steve Shelton, Dr. Garth Gulick, Patricia Carnig, R.N., Patricia Flores, R.N., Helene Lichtman, Jana Russell, Christy Henning, and Brian Walker; (2) Plaintiff was wrongly accused of misconduct and otherwise mistreated and harassed in retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, asserted against Defendants Shelton, Gulick, Al Hannon, Robert Real, James Eastwood, Steve Spang, Bill Doman, and Eugene Reding; (3) Defendants violated Plaintiff's due process rights by failing to properly respond to his records requests and failing to provide Plaintiff with appropriate process relating to his misconduct charge, asserted against Defendants Stan Czerniak, Frank Serrano, Coleen Clemente, Denise Parker, Whitney Dodson, Polly Stuart, Kristina Manley, Brian Belleque, Mary H. Williams, Jeff Premo, David E. Leith, and Zach Erdman; and (4) Defendants' mail policy banning photographs of nude and semi-nude "celebrities" violates Plaintiff's rights, asserted against Defendants Randy Geer, Doman, and Spang.

Currently before the Court are three motions by Plaintiff: (1) a motion to compel production of documents (ECF 134); (2) a motion for the appointment of a medical expert (ECF 152); and (3) a motion for an order requiring Two Rivers Correctional Institute ("TRCI") to photocopy approximately 500-750 exhibits for Plaintiff's anticipated motion for summary judgment (ECF 154). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are DENIED.


A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents responsive to his requests for production. ECF 134. Plaintiff did not articulate the specific requests to which he believes Defendants failed properly to respond. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because he failed to comply with the District of Oregon Local Rule 37-1(a), which requires the movant in a motion to compel to set out the pertinent document request, response, and legal argument as to why the response was deficient. This Court has extended the deadlines in this case several times, and the latest extension was requested based on the fact that Plaintiff's motion to compel was pending. The Court wishes to keep this case moving forward and will, therefore, consider this motion on the merits. The Court reminds Plaintiff, however, that even though he is proceeding pro se he must still comply with the rules of procedure, including the Local Rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because they have adequately responded to the non-objectionable requests by Plaintiff and lodge appropriate objections to the remaining requests. The disputed requests are addressed, in turn, below.

1. Request No. 1

Plaintiff requests "any and all electronically stored information" on the AS400 computer system relating to Plaintiff's medical or mental health and any misconduct. Defendants argue that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and that they have produced Plaintiff's entire medical file and the disciplinary hearing file for the two disciplinary hearings at issue in this case. Defendants assert that the AS400 computer system used by the ODOC is a complicated, password protected menu system that limits staff access and pulls data from multiple sources, and that there is no way to retrieve all inmate data without designating staff to access and review all screens, which would likely take one to two months.

As relevant to this document request, Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to medical needs and that he was wrongfully charged with misconduct and his due process rights were violated with respect to that misconduct charge. The electronically stored information relevant to these claims would be Plaintiff's medical file and the disciplinary file relating to the allegedly wrongful misconduct charge. Defendants represent that they have produced these records to Plaintiff. To the extent there may be some other document that mentions Plaintiff and is relevant to his claims in one of the databases in the AS400 system, the Court finds that the burden of searching for such a document outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The motion to compel further documents in response to this request is denied.

2. Request Nos. 7 and 8

Plaintiff requests all records and emails between certain medical staff relating to Plaintiff's medical and mental health care. Defendants object that these requests are ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.