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)
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?