Harris v. German et al

Filing 69

ORDER requiring Plaintiff to respond to this order within 30-Days 62 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/9/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVONTE HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,

15

1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO THIS ORDER WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
(ECF No. 62.)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Devonte Harris is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First

19

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants Correctional

20

Officer (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Burnitzki (collectively,

21

“Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against

22

defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No.

23

8.)

24

On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. (ECF

25

No. 58.) Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce two videotaped interviews taken on

26

May 16, 2011 and June 13, 2011, for Plaintiff’s inspection. Plaintiff also seeks to review an

27

investigatory report containing a use-of-force critique and qualitative evaluation of Plaintiff’s

28

excessive force allegations against Defendants.
1

1

On February 14, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to compel. (ECF

2

No. 62.) Defendants argue that the official information privilege justifies their withholding of

3

the confidential investigatory report sought by Plaintiff, and disclosure of the report would

4

violate state law and jeopardize the safety and security of the institution, correctional staff, and

5

other inmates. As for the videos which Plaintiff requested to view, Defendants report in their

6

opposition that defense counsel has already made arrangements for Plaintiff to view the videos

7

in question.

8

The court requires updated information to determine whether Plaintiff’s request to view

9

the videos in question is now pending or moot. To this end, Plaintiff shall be required to

10

respond to this order within thirty days informing the court whether he has now seen the

11

videos.

12

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty

13

days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to file a written response to this

14

order informing the court whether he has seen the videos that were taken on May 16, 2011 and

15

June 13, 2011, causing his request to compel inspection of the videos to be moot.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2