Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 108

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 102 Request for Court Order to Conduct Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/15/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER TO
CONDUCT DISCOVERY
(Document 102)

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
The action is currently in discovery.
On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a Court order permitting him to
locate and correspond with certain inmates. The motion is sealed.
Defendants did not file an opposition and the motion is deemed suitable for decision pursuant
to Local Rule 230(l).

28
1

1
2

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff requests a Court order permitting him to locate and correspond with seven inmates.

3

According to Plaintiff, these inmates have information relevant to his claims, and he seeks to “collect

4

evidence, affidavits and statements for potential testimony.” Mot. 1. Plaintiff states that prison

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

officials are evading his requests for information and have transferred these inmates. He asks that he
be able to “correspond confidentially through legal mail.” Mot. 1.
The Court does not have authority to order prison officials to take any action, including
ordering them to allow Plaintiff to locate and communicate with other inmates. This is especially true
in situations where communication may impact institutional safety and security.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff may utilize the discovery procedures
allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in attempting to obtain the information he seeks.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

October 15, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2