Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General Susanna C. Pineda, Bar No. 011293 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Albert DeLeon, No. CV 04-0446 PHX PGR (MS) Plaintiff, v. Dora Schriro, et al., Defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 1 "State specifically the reason why you denied DeLeon possession of his medical cane, and orthopedic shoes during his confinement in C-B-6 2002, 2003." DEFENDANT RUBEN MONTANO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

RESPONSE TO NO. 1 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not admitted by Defendant. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows: The decision to approve or deny medical needs is not the responsibility of the Deputy Warden. The decision is made by the medical physician. I never denied Inmate DeLeon his medical can or orthopedic shoes.

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

Document 169

Filed 10/19/2005

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 2 "Explain why you allowed other inmates to have possession of medical orthopedic shoes, use of cane while confined in C-B-6 2002, 2003."

RESPONSE TO NO. 2 Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, not likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, and it assumes facts not admitted by Defendant. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: I never allow or disallow medical orthopedic shoes or the use of a cane while confined in CB-6. The decision for the need of medical orthopedic shoes or a cane is made by a medical physician.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3 "State specifically context of all conversations you had, reference to DeLeon confinement, reason therefore in 02, 03. Identify each individual you had conversations with, title name."

RESPONSE TO NO. 3 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and not likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: I cannot recall any conversations I have had with any person regarding Inmate DeLeon.

2
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 169 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 "State specifically all information you have on the accusations against DeLeon of "conspiracy to sexually assault a female officer (reason for confinement in C-B-6 in 02,03."

RESPONSE TO NO. 4 Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and not likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Inmate DeLeon was moved to CB-6 from another unit. CB-6 is Florence Complex's Detention Unit. Inmates are temporarily housed in CB-6 for numerous reasons, including pending investigation for criminal investigations, disciplinary investigation and the need for protective segregation review. information on the allegations mentioned above. I do not have any

INTERROGATORY NO. 5 "State specifically the context of conversations you had with DeLeon, reference to his need for orthopedic shoes, use of a cane, during his confinement in C-B-6 02, 03."

RESPONSE TO NO. 5. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and it assumes facts not admitted by Defendant. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: I do not recall any conversations I had with Inmate DeLeon.

3
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 169 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 6 "State specifically what actions you took to secure use of DeLeons orthopedic shoes, use of cane, during confinement in C-B-6 in 02, 03."

RESPONSE TO NO. 6. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and it assumes facts not admitted by Defendant. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: I never secured Inmate DeLeon's orthopedic shoes or his cane. All personal property is placed in the property room within the facility. These items are forwarded with the inmate when he leaves the facility. If the items are given by the medical staff, then the items are taken back by the medical staff.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _____ day of October, 2005. Terry Goddard Attorney General

Susanna C. Pineda Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

4
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 169 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 169 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 5 of 6

Original mailed this ____ of October, 2005 to: Albert DeLeon, #032814 ASPC - Lewis P.O. Box 3300 Buckeye, AZ 85326-0303 _________________________________ Legal Secretary to: Susanna C. Pineda IDS04-0271/RSK:G03-03830 #925674

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 My Commission Expires:

VERIFICATION
I, Warden Ruben Montano, verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Interrogatories in DeLeon v. Schriro, et al., USDC 04-CV-446 PHX PGR (MS), are true and correct.

DATED this ___ day of September, 2005.

Ruben Montano

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

day of September, 2005.

____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

_________________________

6
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 169 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 6 of 6