Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 9/3/2014. (Jessen, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:11-cv-001749-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION AT DOCKET 25

vs.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 25 Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez filed a Motion to Compel Responses to
Discovery. Defendant J. Davis has opposed the motion,1 and Martinez has replied.2
Martinez seeks to compel production of restraints and clothing used on an inmate
while on contraband watch. In screening the Complaint this Court permitted Martinez to
proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim pleaded in his third cause of
action against Defendant J. Davis.3 Upon further review of the Complaint, to clarify the
extent of the claim upon which Plaintiff may proceed in this Court, it is noted that the sole
allegations that rise to the level of a constitutional Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
are those allegations contained in paragraphs 56 through 58 of the Complaint. At most,

1

Docket 26.

2

Docket 32.

3

Docket 11.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 25.
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 1

the remaining allegations contained in the third cause of action constitute violations of the
regulations promulgated by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which
do not rise to the level of a constitutional excessive force claim cognizable in this Court.
The restraints and clothing sought to be produced are not relevant to the issue of
excessive force, nor will their production reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery at Docket
25 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2014.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 25.
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 2