Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 114

ORDER DENYING 112 Motion for Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/12/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA (PC)

MITCHELL GARRAWAY,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

(ECF No. 112.)

JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

18

action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case now proceeds with

19

Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit

20

Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant (Lt.) J. Zaragoza (collectively,

21

“Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)

22

On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing Warden Cheatham:

23

(1) to allow Plaintiff’s court-appointed counsel to enter the United States Penitentiary in Coleman,

24

Florida, where Plaintiff is incarcerated; (2) to allow “a U.S. Marshall computer specialist, or other

25

such non-Bureau of Prisons computer specialist, [be allowed] to enter [the Penitentiary] for the

26

purpose of accessing the Federal Bureau of Prisons ‘Sentry’ computer systems and its G-drive to

27

locate, inspect, and copy all Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs, and other

28

documents, related to ‘Inmate Investigative Report, ATW-16-0161’ which were entered into that
1

1

system’s G-drive from April 2016 to December 2016”; (3) to allow Plaintiff to be present; (4) to

2

allow Plaintiff to confer with the court-appointed attorney for one hour afterward; and (5) to provide

3

full hazmat suits, latex gloves, and face masks for safety. (ECF No. 112.)

4

The court shall not issue the orders sought by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has not been

5

appointed counsel by the court and therefore the court cannot direct the Warden to permit Plaintiff’s

6
7
8

appointed counsel to enter the penitentiary. Second, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling the Warden to enable him to obtain discovery documents, Plaintiff must first request
the discovery documents from the Defendants.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion, filed on August 10, 2020, is DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12

August 12, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Subject to certain requirement, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of
documents from a non-party, and to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28
U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the
non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for
production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he made a request to Defendants for
production of these documents, nor has Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce the requested
documents.

2