Jacobs v. Sullivan et al

Filing 58

ORDER STAYING 1 Action as to Defendant Crotty Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(a); ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 55 Motion to Preserve Evidence signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/22/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

13

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01625-LJO-SMS PC
ORDER STAYING ACTION AS TO
DEFENDANT CROTTY PURSUANT TO 11
U.S.C. § 362(a)
(ECF No. 56)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

14
/ (ECF No. 55)
15
16

I.

Procedural History

17

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs, IV, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the third

19

amended complaint, filed May 5, 2010, against Defendants Watson, Chan, McGregor, Blankenship,

20

Crotty, Granillo, Nelson, Carrasco, Johnson, Jobb, Adams, and Alexander for a violation of the

21

Eighth Amendment. On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to preserve evidence. (ECF No. 55.)

22

On June 15, 2011, a request was filed to stay the action as to Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

23

§ 362(a). (ECF No. 56.)

24

II.

Motion to Preserve Evidence

25

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a court order prohibiting Defendants from destroying

26

videotapes and photographs pertaining to the incident of excessive force set forth in the complaint

27

and requesting sanctions of $25,000 for each videotape that is lost or destroyed.

28

“Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or reasonably should
1

1

know will be relevant evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” JUDGE WILLIAM W.

2

SCHW ARZER

3

quotations and citations omitted); see also Leon v. Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006).

4

This obligation, backed by the court’s power to impose sanctions for the destruction of such

5

evidence, Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases to secure

6

the preservation of relevant evidence.

ET AL.,

FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal

7

Before the court orders additional measures to preserve evidence, there must be some

8

showing that there is a reason to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence will not be

9

preserved and that the opposing party may be harmed as a result. Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., No. 08-

10

cv-1462-IEG-RBB, 2008 WL 4104473, *1 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Given the duty to preserve

11

evidence and the absence of any showing by Plaintiff that there is reason for the Court to be

12

concerned about the destruction of any evidence, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. The Court

13

declines to presume that Defendants will destroy evidence and Plaintiff has provided no evidence

14

that the videotapes or photographs are in danger of being destroyed.

15

III.

Motion to Stay Proceeding

16

Defendant Crotty filed a bankruptcy petition on May 2, 2011. Pursuant to Section 362(a) all

17

actions against a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition are automatically stayed once the

18

petition is filed. Sternberg v. Johnston, 559 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, this action

19

has been stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings.

20

IV.

Order

21

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

This action is stayed as to Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); and

23

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence, filed May 9, 2011, is DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
cm411

June 22, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2