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