Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 213

ORDER Regarding Defendants' Motion for In Camera Review signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/27/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 ERIC WHEELER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. ALISON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (Document 190) 16 17 Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 20 Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 25, 2012, on the following claims: (1) excessive force in 21 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Duck, Murrieta and Lowder; (2) failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Duck, Murrietta, Lowder, 23 Loftis and Alison; and (3) deliberate indifference to a serious medical in violation of the Eighth 24 25 26 27 28 Amendment against Defendants Ross, Mui, Neubarth and Ancheta. On December 15, 2014, the Court issued a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. As is relevant to this motion, the Court permitted Defendants to submit two documents for in camera review: (1) the Confidential Inquiry concerning the Staff Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Log 1 1 Number Z-11-00704; and (2) the Confidential Supplementary Report, dated January 26, 2011, 2 concerning Inmate Yepiz and Plaintiff.1 3 4 DISCUSSION A. 5 Confidential Inquiry concerning Plaintiff’s Staff Complaint, Log Number Z-11-00704 In Request for Production, Set Two, Number 10, Plaintiff requests all “confidential 6 7 8 9 inquiry, information-reports by following witnesses questioned: V. Trevino, masters of social work, inmates Schriver, D-55998, Mitchell, P-19128, Pierson, AA-7947, and Siebert, V-61109, in appeal log # SATF-2-11-00704.” ECF No. 122, at 56. Plaintiff contends that these 10 individuals witnessed both events- Yepiz’s attack and the subsequent interaction with 11 Defendants. Plaintiff states that except for Inmate Mitchell, none of the named inmates remain 12 in custody. Plaintiff also argues that threats of retaliation are not an issue since the inmates 13 provided statements favorable to Plaintiff. 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants objected to the disclosure of the Confidential Inquiry because it is confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which would endanger the safety of other inmates and staff. Specifically, Defendants argue that production of the confidential portions will expose the confidential sources to attack. Barba Decl. ¶¶ 12-14 (ECF No. 122-1, at 4-5). Defendants also argue that any evidentiary value is slight because 19 Defendants do not dispute that Yepiz attacked Wheeler on January 19, 2011. 20 The Court has reviewed the document at issue and finds that it can be produced in 21 22 23 24 redacted form. Defendants may replace the names of the witnesses with an alpha or numeric identifier. If, after review, Plaintiff believes that a witness can offer favorable testimony, he may seek the name of the witness. 25 26 27 1 28 Although the motion for in camera review is filed under seal, this order does not disclose information that would require it to be sealed. 2 1 2 3 4 5 B. Confidential Supplementary Report, Dated January 26, 2011 In Request for Production, Set One, Number 5 and Set Two, Number 3, Plaintiff sought documents related to the January 19, 2011, attack by Inmate Yepiz, including statements by inmates and staff, the Rules Violation Report and all confidential sources. Plaintiff also requested all confidential inmate sources, etc. relating to the incident in Yepiz’s C-file and 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff’s C-file. Plaintiff again contends that the documents may disclose potential eyewitnesses. He believes that the confidential inmate witnesses have been released from prison, and that each provided a statement on Plaintiff’s behalf. Defendants cite Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 3321 in arguing that the document is 12 confidential. They also argue that disclosure will violate Inmate Yepiz’s privacy and subject 13 Yepiz and the other confidential sources to attack. 14 15 16 17 The Court has reviewed the document at issue and finds that it can be produced in redacted form. Defendants may replace the names of the witnesses with an alpha or numeric identifier. If, after review, Plaintiff believes that a witness can offer favorable testimony, he may seek the name of the witness. 18 ORDER 19 Defendants SHALL produce the documents at issue, in redacted form as outlined above, 20 21 22 within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: /s/ Dennis January 27, 2015 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?