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)

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 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?