Wheeler v. Alison et al
Filing
222
ORDER DENYING 200 Plaintiff's Motion to Order Production of Video signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/2015. (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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ORDER PRODUCTION
OF VIDEO
(Document 200)
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.
21
22
Discovery closed on November 19, 2014.
On December 5, 2014, Defendant Mui filed a motion for summary judgment. The
23
motion is fully briefed and is awaiting decision.
24
25
The remaining Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015.
26
27
28
1
1
On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this Court order Defense
2
Counsel R. Lawrence Bragg1 to produce an “excessive force video dated January 24, 2011.”
3
4
ECF No. 200, at 1. Plaintiff requests that the Court review the video in camera as evidence in
support of his January 20, 2015, opposition to Defendant Mui’s motion for summary judgment.
5
The instant motion is not a Rule 56(d) motion, as there is no indication that Plaintiff was
6
7
8
unable to adequately oppose the motion for summary judgment. Indeed, Plaintiff makes no such
argument. Plaintiff’s opposition is 43 pages in length, and includes over 140 pages of exhibits.
Rather, it appears that Plaintiff simply wants the Court to view the video in conjunction
9
10
with his opposition. At this time, however, it is unclear how the actual video would be relevant
11
to the resolution of Defendant Mui’s motion for summary judgment. The allegations against
12
Defendant Mui are limited to treatment rendered at Mercy Hospital after the excessive force
13
incident. The actual excessive force incident is irrelevant to whether Defendant Mui was
14
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Rather, that determination will turn
15
on the information Defendant Mui had at the time of Plaintiff’s treatment.
16
Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
20
February 11, 2015
/s/ Dennis
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
Defendant Mui is represented by Thomas P. Feher of LeBeau-Thelen, LLP. The remaining Defendants are
represented by Mr. Bragg of the Office of the Attorney General.
2
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?