Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING 110 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and ORDER for Defendants to Conduct Another Document Search and File Notice of Compliance Within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/20/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MITCHELL GARRAWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 110.)
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO
CONDUCT ANOTHER DOCUMENT
SEARCH AND FILE NOTICE OF
COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS

BACKGROUND

18

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

19

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

20

proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants

21

Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J. Zaragoza

22

(collectively, “Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

(ECF No. 1.)

24

On November 27, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting out

25

deadlines for the parties including a discovery deadline of May 25, 2019, and a dispositive

26

motions deadline of July 27, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) On March 4, 2020, the court extended the

27

discovery deadline to June 5, 2020 and the dispositive motions deadline to August 5, 2020. (ECF

28

No. 97.) The deadlines are now expired.
1

1

On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. (ECF

2

No. 35.) On March 16, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel requiring Defendants

3

to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, #1-9 and #11.

4

(ECF No. 100.) On June 1, 2020, Defendants filed a response to the court’s order documenting

5

the supplemental responses provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 109.)

6

On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for the imposition of sanctions against

7

Defendants for failing to comply with the court’s March 16, 2020 discovery order. (ECF No.

8

110.) On July 21, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 111.) On

9

August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the opposition. (ECF No. 113.)
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).

10
11

II.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

12

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that on March 20, 2016, Officer Ciprian [not a

13

defendant] and Plaintiff informed defendants Miller and Zaragoza that Plaintiff’s cellmate had

14

cut Plaintiff’s nose, and on March 21, 2016, Plaintiff informed defendant Ciufo that the cellma te

15

had cut Plaintiff’s nose. Plaintiff requested to be moved to another cell, but each of the three

16

Defendants denied his request. On April 2, 2016, the same cellmate struck Plaintiff on the left

17

side of his jaw. Plaintiff alleges that all of the Defendants were aware of the cellmate’s long

18

history of serious assaults on other inmates for which the cellmate’s victims required

19

hospitalization. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to protect him from harm in violatio n

20

of the Eighth Amendment.

21

III.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

22

A.

Legal Standards

23

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in this civil action. The discovery

24

process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery

25

responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242,

26

1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

27

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including the

28

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other
2

Parties may obtain discovery

1

tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted).

3

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Id. (quotation

4

marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

5

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks

6

omitted).

For good cause, the court may order

7

Pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f a party or a party's

8

officer, director, or managing agent--or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)--

9

fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or

10

37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders,” which may include

11

the following:

12

(i)

directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken
as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;

(ii)

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims
or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

16

(iii)

striking pleadings in whole or in part;

17

(iv)

staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v)

dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi)

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii)

treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination.

13
14
15

18
19
20
21
22
23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
A court may sanction a party for failing to obey a discovery order and may treat the failure

24
25
26

as contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Civil contempt “consists of a party’s
disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within
the party’s power to comply.” In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10

27
28

F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). “The contempt ‘need not be willful,’ and there is no good faith

3

1

exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.” Id. (quoting In re Crystal Palace

2

Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The party alleging civil contempt

3

must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor violated the court’s order by ‘clear and convinc ing

4

evidence,’ not merely a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Vertex Distrib., Inc. v.

5

Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1982)).

6

The Ninth Circuit explained, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the district

7

court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the

8

rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R. J. Reynolds Indus.,

9

Inc., 709 F.2d 857, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc.,

10

427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976)). The Ninth Circuit has counseled that if lesser sanctions have the

11

potential to remedy any abuse, this is preferable to dispositive sanctions. Rio Properties, Inc. v.

12

Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002) (the “availability of less drastic sanctions ”

13

is often determinative of whether dispositive sanctions should lie).

14

The court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these

15

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator; therefore, to the extent possible,

16

the court endeavors to resolve his motion on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,

17

616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.

18

2005); Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

19

B.

20

Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to comply with the court’s discovery order because

21

they failed to provide him the following:
1.

22

Unredacted copies to Plaintiff of pages 1-8 of the “inmate investigative report,

23

case number ATW-16-0161,” pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set

24

One, No. 4;

25

2.

Unredacted copies of privileged documents to the court for in camera review; and

26

3.

The “Standard Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action” for Officer Ciprian to
Plaintiff, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set. 2, No. 3.

27
28

///
4

1

As relief, Plaintiff requests a court order:

2

1.

That all asserted claims outlined in his prisoner Complaint (filed April 7, 2017)
be taken as established;

3

2.

4

That the Defendants be prohibited from (i) supporting or opposing claims or

5

defenses he designates, and (ii) introducing as evidence matters Plaintiff

6

designates;

7

3.

That a default judgment be rendered against the Defendants;

8

4.

That counsel for the Defendants (viz., McGregor W. Scott, Victoria Boesch,
Annette M. Lopez) and all other case participants be declared in contempt of court

9

for their failure to obey this court’s March 14, 2020 order; and

10

5.

11

That the Defendants not be allowed to use any part of BOP “inmate investigative

12

report, case number ATW-16-161” or potential witnesses named therein, to

13

supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial.

14

IV.

ANALYSIS

15

The court shall address each of Plaintiff’s arguments in turn.

16

A.

17

Plaintiff argues that Defendants refused to provide him with unredacted copies of pages

18

1-8 of the “inmate investigative report, case number ATW-16-0161,” pursuant to his Request for

19

Production, Set One, No. 4 and the court’s discovery order.

Failure to Provide 8-Page Inmate Investigative Report ATW-16-0161

20

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (RFP), SET ONE, NO. 4:

21

A copy of the BOP SIS Investigation Labeled, “Institution: Atwater USP, Case Number

22

ATW-16-0161,” Pages 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5, 5 of 5, 1 of 8, 2 of 8, 3 of 8, 4 of 8, 5 of 8, 6

23

of 8, 7 of 8, 8 of 8.

24

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL RESPONSE TO RFP, SET ONE, NO. 4:

25

Federal Defendants object to this request because it seeks documents not within their

26

custody or control. Federal Defendants object to this request because it seeks informatio n

27

protected against disclosure by the Privacy Act and information that would violate the privacy

28

rights of third parties. Federal Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it
5

1

seeks sensitive information about the security, operation, and management of USP Atwater and

2

BOP and should not be produced to Plaintiff because doing so poses a risk to the secure

3

operations of the correctional facilities and information protected by the law enforcement

4

privilege. Federal Defendants will request a copy of the document with such information redacted

5

from BOP.

6

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO RFP, SET ONE, NO 4:

7

In accordance with the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents

8

sought by Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests (Dkt. 100), Federal Defendants

9

produce un-redacted copies of the identified documents from a prior FOIA1 production by

10

BOP2 (see Dkt. 35 at 12-20). This includes an un-redacted copy of a five-page report

11

previously partially redacted (see Dkt. 35 at 12-16) and four un-redacted copies of a one-

12

page affidavit from another prisoner dated April 15, 2016, that had been previously

13

produced as four fully redacted pages in that prior FOIA production (see Dkt. 35 at 17-20).

14

Discussion

15

Plaintiff argues that the 9 pages produced by Defendants do not include any of the 8-page

16

“inmate investigative report, ATW-16-161” he requested, and he asserts that counsel for

17

Defendants seek to deceive the court into believing that the four affidavits they produced are part

18

of the investigative report, whereas this is not the case. Plaintiff alleges that the 5-page report

19

provided by Defendants and the 8-page report requested by Plaintiff are part of the same 13-page

20

document, and he questions why Defendants did not provide the 8-page report if they were able

21

to download the 5-page report in unredacted form. Plaintiff states that he was already provided

22

the four affidavits and a completely-redacted copy of the 8-page report in response to a Freedom

23

of Information Act request. He chides Defendants for failing to conduct a search of Plaintif f’ s

24

computerized central file maintained at USP-Coleman, where Plaintiff has verified that the 8-

25

page report is kept, arguing that Defendants violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E), which requires

26

a party to “make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it.”

27
1

Freedom of Information Act.

2

Federal Bureau of Prisons.

28

6

1

None of Defendants’ declarations state that they conducted searches of the Federal Bureau of

2

Prisons Sentry Computer System.

3

Defendants deny that they refused to disclose 8 pages of an investigative report. They

4

argue that they produced un-redacted documents, including the investigative report sought by

5

Garraway. Defendants assert that Plaintiff provided the 5-page redacted “Inmate Investigative

6

Report, Case Number ATW-16-0161” and 4 redacted pages of affidavits pursuant to his origina l

7

document request, and Defendants then provided him with unredacted versions of those same

8

documents. To provide clarity to the court, Defendants show that they provided these unredacted

9

versions to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 111 at 2:11-14 (“Compare Exh. A at 4-8 and Dkt. 35 at 12-16

10

(redacted five-page report) with Exh. B at 4-7 and Dkt. 35 at 17-20 (four fully redacted pages

11

from elsewhere in the FOIA production”)).

12

declaration of Jendrick Gilyard, BOP employee at USP-Coleman, who states that an additiona l

13

search of Plaintiff’s central file confirmed that the only report found in the central file concerns

14

an April 2, 2016 incident involving Plaintiff, which is the 5-page report already produced to

15

Plaintiff in unredacted form. (Gilyard Declaration, ECF No. 111, Exh. C.)

In addition, Defendants have submitted the

16

A responding party must make a reasonable inquiry to determine whether responsive

17

documents exist, and if they do not, the “party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow

18

the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligenc e. ”

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

20

It appears that a misunderstanding arose between the parties because there is more than

21

one report titled “inmate investigative report, ATW-16-161.” Plaintiff requested an unredacted

22

8-page report and Defendants provided Plaintiff with an unredacted 5-page report bearing the

23

same title. According to Plaintiff, the 5-page report and 8-page report are part of the same larger

24

13-page report and can be found together by conducting a search on the Sentry computer system

25

at USP-Coleman.

26

Defendants assert that they recently made an additional search of Plaintiff’s central file

27

at USP-Coleman and only found the 5-page report already provided to Plaintiff in unredacted

28

form. They submitted a one-page declaration by Jendrick Gilyard, BOP case manager at USP7

1

Coleman, stating that he “reviewed Garraway’s central file for reports concerning an April 2,

2

2016 incident involving Garraway[, and] Garraway’s central file contains only one 5-page report

3

about an April 2, 2016 incident, entitled “Inmate Investigative Report” and bearing case number

4

“ATW-16-0161.” (Gilyard Decl., ECF No. 111 at page 23 ¶ 3 (Exh. C)).

5

It is not clear from Gilyard’s declaration whether he reviewed Plaintiff’s paper central

6

file, Plaintiff’s computer central file, or both, but in this instance a reasonable inquiry would

7

include a search of the Sentry computer system at USP-Coleman where Plaintiff adamantly

8

insists that both the 5-page and 8-page reports can be found together in his computerized C file.

9

As Gilyard’s declaration does not state that he conducted a search of computer files includ ing

10

Plaintiff’s computerized C-file, the court shall require Defendants to conduct such a search and

11

report back to the court within 30 days.

12

In light of the possible misunderstanding between the parties, the court finds it unjust to

13

impose sanctions on Defendants for their failure to provide the 8-page (if it exists) report sought

14

by Plaintiff. However, Defendants shall be required to conduct a computer search as discussed

15

above. If Defendants do not find the 8-page report in Plaintiff’s computer C-file, Defendants

16

shall file a Notice of Compliance informing the court of their reasonable efforts to locate the

17

requested report. In the event that Defendants find the report, they are required to file a Notice

18

of Compliance informing the court that they provided Plaintiff with an unredacted copy of the

19

report, or , if they determine that the report should be withheld or redacted pursuant to the offic ia l

20

information privilege, provide unredacted copies of the report to the court for in camera review,

21

submitting a privilege log and an affidavit from an official of the agency in control of the

22

materials sought.

23

B.

24

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counsel have refused to provide unredacted copies of

25

documents in defiance of the court’s order, which states that “Defendants shall provide

26

unredacted copies of the privileged documents to the court for in camera review.” (ECF No. 110

27

at 2:7-8.) Instead, according to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants have chosen to feign ignorance

Failure to Send Documents to the Court for In Camera Review

28

8

1

with regard to the court’s order, and erroneously claim that they do not understand the court’s

2

order as instructing them to file such documents with the court, and so they have not done so.

3

Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s claim is erroneous because the court’s order indicated

4

that in camera review could be done to resolve a privilege objection to producing unredacted

5

documents, and because Defendants produced unredacted documents no such review by the court

6

was necessary.

7

Discussion

8

The court’s March 16, 2020 discovery order states as follows:

9

“Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with unredacted copies. However, if

10

Defendants determine that any of the documents should be withheld or redacted

11

pursuant to the official information privilege, they may invoke the privilege by

12

complying with the requirements discussed above, submitting a privilege log and

13

an affidavit from an official of the agency in control of the materials sought.

14

Defendants shall provide unredacted copies of the privileged documents to the

15

court for in camera review. In that instance, Defendants shall submit the

16

privileged documents to the Clerk’s Office in a sealed manila envelope boldly

17

marked ‘Confidential documents for in camera review by Magistrate Judge Gary

18

S. Austin.’”

19

(ECF No. 100 at 15-22.)

20

The court now clarifies that pursuant to the March 16, 2020 order, Defendants were only

21

required to provide unredacted copies of privileged documents to the court for in camera review

22

if they determined that any documents should be withheld or redacted pursuant to the offic ia l

23

information privilege.

24

privileged. Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s understanding, Defendants were not required to

25

submit any documents to the court for in camera review, and Defendants did not defy the court’s

26

order by failing to submit documents for in camera review.

27
28

In this instance, Defendants did not identify any of the documents as

Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants defied the court’s order by failing to submit
documents to the court for in camera review fails.
9

1

///

2

///
C.

3

Failure to Provide Plaintiff with Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action
for Officer Ciprian

4
5

Plaintiff argues that Defendants disobeyed the court’s March 16, 2020 discovery order

6

when they refused to provide him with a copy of the Standard Form 50 Notification of Personnel

7

Action concerning Officer Ciprian pursuant to Plaintiff’s his Request for Production, Set Two,

8

No. 3.

9

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (RFP), SET TWO, NO. 3:

10

All portions of the Federal Bureau of Prisons personnel files for Corrections Officer

11

Ciprian which are related to his transfer from Custody Department to Food Service Department

12

at United States Penitentiary – Atwater.

13

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 3:

14

Federal Defendants object to this request as seeking information irrelevant to the subject

15

matter of this litigation. Federal Defendants further object to this request because it seeks

16

information protected against disclosure by the Privacy Act and information that would violate

17

the privacy rights of third parties. Federal Defendants requested that the Bureau of Prisons

18

conduct a reasonable search for the described documents. Federal Defendants understand that

19

BOP has not yet been able to conduct this search because of staffing difficulties associated with

20

the current pandemic. Federal Defendants will supplement their response to reflect the results of

21

BOP’s search on or before June 1, 2020. See Dkt. 107 (granting Defendants until June 1, 2020,

22

to comply with the order at Dkt. 100).

23

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO 3:

24

Though this set of document requests (Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document Requests)

25

was not the subject of the Court’s prior order, following the guidance in the Court’s orde r

26

on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents sought by Plaintiff’s First Set of Document

27

Requests (Dkt. 100), Federal Defendants asked BOP to conduct a search of Ciprian’s

28

personnel file for documents related to his transfer from the Custody Department to the
10

1

Food Service Department at United States Penitentiary-Atwater. The only such docume nt

2

located is a Standard Form 50 “Notification of Personnel Action” with an effective date of

3

June 26, 2016, reflecting that Ciprian changed positions from a Corrections Officer to a

4

Food Services worker. See Declaration from Federal Bureau of Prisons USP Atwate r

5

Human Resource Specialist Sherry Franco. Federal Defendants object to producing this

6

document because Ciprian’s job transfer is not relevant to any issue in this case and so this

7

document memorializing that transfer is not relevant. In addition, producing the docume nt

8

would violate the Privacy Act, and it would violate Ciprian’s privacy rights because it

9

contains sensitive personal information about him (including his date of birth, social

10

security number, and salary). Federal Defendants note that Ciprian is not a defendant in

11

this case.

12

Discussion

13

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants refused to provide him with “Standard Form 50

14

‘Notification of Personnel Action,’” which details Officer Ciprian’s job transfer from USP-

15

Atwater’s Custody Department to Food Service Department. Plaintiff argues that the Form 50

16

document is relevant to his claims in this action because it may provide the name of the agent (a

17

potential witness for Plaintiff) from the BOP Office of Internal Affairs who interviewed Officer

18

Ciprian and recommended Ciprian’s transfer from the Custody Department to the Food Service

19

Department.

20

showing that the reason was to protect Officer Ciprian from retaliation by defendant Zaragoza

21

because Ciprian implicated Zaragoza in failing to protect Plaintiff from the April 2, 2016 assault

22

by inmate Shelton.

23

Ciprian’s transfer, pursuant to BOP Program Statements (i) 1351.05, 9(a); Release of Informatio n

24

and (ii) 3000.05, §294.1, 9, Human Resources Management Manual.

Plaintiff contends that the document may provide the reason for the transfer

Plaintiff also argues that he is entitled to the Form 50 detailing Officer

25

Defendants object to producing the Form 50 document requested by Plaintiff which

26

reflects that non-party Officer Ciprian changed positions from a Corrections Officer to a Food

27

Services worker in June 2016. Plaintiff requested the document in set two of his Requests for

28

Production of Documents Plaintiff’s Set Two of his Document Requests. Set Two was served
11

1

by Plaintiff shortly after the court issued its March 14, 2020 order and therefore Defendants are

2

not required by the order to respond to Plaintiff’s second set of Document Requests. Nonetheless,

3

Defendants object to producing this document because Officer Ciprian’s job transfer is not

4

relevant to any issue in this case, and production of this document would violate the Privacy Act

5

and violate Ciprian’s privacy rights because it contains sensitive personal information about him

6

(including his date of birth, social security number, and salary).

7

Here, Plaintiff cannot argue that Defendants failed to comply with the court’s discovery

8

order in refusing to provide Form 50 because the court’s discovery order does not address

9

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set two, where Plaintiff’s request for documents

10

from Officer Ciprian’s personnel file is found.

11

The court agrees with Defendants that Officer Ciprian’s job transfer from one department

12

to another department is not relevant to any of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s only claim in this

13

case is that defendants Ciufo, Miller, and Zaragoza failed to protect him from Plaintiff’s cellma te

14

who struck Plaintiff in the jaw. To succeed on a failure-to-protect claim, a plaintiff must

15

demonstrate that the defendant was consciously aware (knew) that a substantial risk of serious

16

harm to the plaintiff existed and that even so, the defendant ignored the risk or acted unreasonab ly

17

in response to the risk, causing injury to the plaintiff.

18

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the

19

fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The fact that Officer Ciprian

20

changed jobs and was transferred from one department to another does not support any of

21

Plaintiff’s claims in this action. Plaintiff’s speculation that the Form 50 may contain certain

22

additional evidence is merely speculation.

Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any

23

If Plaintiff is entitled to a copy of Form 50 pursuant to BOP Program Statements (i)

24

1351.05, 9(a); Release of Information and (ii) 3000.05, §294.1, 9, and the Human Resources

25

Management Manual, he should make a written request to prison officials using the process

26

approved at the penitentiary.

27
28

Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants defied the court’s order by failing to provide
him a copy of Form 50 documenting Officer Ciprian’s job transfer, fails.
12

1

///

2

///

3

V.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on April 29, 2019, is DENIED;

6

2.

Defendants are required to make a computer search of Plaintiff’s central file at

7

USP-Coleman on the computer system where Plaintiff’s computerized central file

8

is kept;

9

3.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall either:
(1)

10

(if Defendants do not locate the 8-page report) file a written notice of

11

compliance with the court describing their reasonable efforts to locate the

12

8-page report; or
(2)

13

(if Defendants locate the 8-page report) file a written notice of compliance

14

informing the court that they have provided an unredacted copy of the

15

report to Plaintiff, or, if they determine that the report should be withhe ld

16

or redacted pursuant to the official information privilege,

17

unredacted copies of the report to the court for in camera review,

18

submitting a privilege log and an affidavit from an official of the agency

19

in control of the materials sought.

provide

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 20, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

13