Stafford vs. Brazelton

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Preserve Evidence Without Prejudice (Documents 11 and 14 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/30/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRIAN KEITH STAFFORD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
P.J. BRAZELTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01675 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
PRESERVE EVIDENCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Documents 11 and 14)

16
17

Plaintiff Brian Keith Stafford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed on June 28, 2012. Plaintiff filed a second amended

19

complaint on December 21, 2012. The complaint has not yet been screened pursuant to 28

20
21
22

U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
On October 31, 2012, and November 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed identical motions to preserve
evidence. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to preserve videotape evidence of the

23

June 6, 2012, Facility C yard video from the hours of 8:00 a.m., to 1:30 p.m., and the video
24
25
26
27
28

recording of his June 6, 2012, interview with Officer J. Aguerralde.
“[A]s soon as a potential claim is identified, a litigant is under a duty to preserve
evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” Ameripride Svcs.,
Inc. v. Valley Indus. Serv., Inc., 2006 WL 2308442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing National
1

1
2
3
4

Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 566-67 (N.D. Cal. 1987)). The court
has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper conduct, Chambers v.
Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766
(1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001), which includes spoliation of

5

evidence, World Courier v. Barone, 2007 WL 1119196, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Ameripride
6
7

Svcs., Inc., 2006 WL 2308442, at *4.
A motion to preserve evidence requires the court to consider “1) the level of concern the

8
9

court has for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in

10

question in the absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; 2) any irreparable

11

harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation of evidence absent an order directing

12

preservation; and 3) the capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence

13

sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but

14

also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering the evidence preservation.”

15

Daniel v. Coleman Co., Inc., 2007 WL 1463102, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2007).

16
17
18
19

At this juncture, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has not yet been screened. As a
result, it is unknown whether Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim and whether any Defendants
shall be made to answer. Without having made any appearances, the Court does not have
jurisdiction to issue any orders directed at Defendants. If and when Plaintiff’s complaint is

20
21
22
23
24

served and Defendants make an appearance in this action, by filing either an answer or a motion
responsive to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff may renew his motion, taking care to make the
requisite showing set forth in the preceding paragraph. Until Defendants have made an
appearance, Plaintiff’s motion is premature and is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 30, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

2

1

3b142a

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3