(PC) Mansour v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 60

ORDER Re: Plaintiff's 59 Motion Requesting Subpoenas for Video Recording of San Quentin Correctional Officers Dated July 18, 2024 and on SCC Jamestown, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/28/2024. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MUSTAFFA MANSOUR,

11

Plaintiff,

12

Case No. 1:22-cv-01054-JLT-EPG (PC)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING SUBPOENAS FOR VIDEO
RECORDING OF SAN QUENTIN
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS DATED JULY
18, 2024, AND ON SCC JAMESTOWN

v.

13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LUKEN,

14

Defendant.

(ECF No. 59)

15
Mustaffa Mansour (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16
17

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s

18

claim against Defendant Luken1 for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF

19

No. 24). The underlying use of force incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim took place at North

20

Kern State Prison on May 25, 2022. (ECF No. 1).
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the following: (1) a subpoena for

21
22

video footage allegedly depicting acts of retaliation by San Quentin State Prison correctional

23

officers on July 18, 2024; and (2) a subpoena on SCC Jamestown2. (ECF No. 59). Specifically,

24

Plaintiff’s motion states in the caption3, “I am requesting another retaliation subpoena4 for SCC

25
26
27
28

The spelling of Defendant Luken’s name has been inconsistent throughout the record, with “Luken” and
“Lucken” used.
2
The Court believes Plaintiff is referring to the CDCR facility Sierra Conservation Center located in
Jamestown, California.
3
The recitation of the contents of Plaintiff’s motion has been edited for clarity and punctuation.
4
The Court notes that while Plaintiff states he is requesting “another” subpoena from SCC Jamestown, the
1

1

1

Jamestown, for losing all my property witness info and family contacts to my witness.” (Id. at 1).

2

The motion then requests:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff, Mustaffa Mansour (BS3499) at San Quentin State Prison is requesting to
proof lots of (CDCR) misconducts retaliations through write ups I’ve received and
video footage. Plaintiff has a court date of Aug 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., for
Defendant Luken deposition. (CDCR) retaliated bad enough that I’m in a E.O.P.
Mental Program, from Fire Camp . . . .
I, Mustaffa Mansour (BS3499), respectfully ask the courts to grant me
“subpoenas” on San Quentin State Prison and SCC Jamestown based on evidence
of retaliations.
ECF No. 1 at 1-2.
Initially, the Court notes that the claim proceeding in this case involves an incident

10

that occurred at North Kern State Prison with a correctional officer employed there.

11

However, Plaintiff’s motion is requesting video footage concerning correctional officers at

12

San Quentin State Prison, as well as a subpoena on SCC Jamestown5. Additionally, the

13

video footage Plaintiff requests is from an incident dated July 18, 2024, almost two years

14

after Plaintiff commenced this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion does not seek

15

information relevant to any claims or defendants proceeding in this action. See Fed. R.

16

Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

17
18
19
20

relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .”); See also ECF No. 53, at 3 (requiring the
parties to serve copies of documents and evidence in their possession, custody, or control,
which have not already been produced, including, “[v]ideo recordings and photographs
related to the incident(s) at issue in the complaint, including video recordings and
photographs of Plaintiff taken following the incident(s).” (footnote omitted) (emphasis

21
added)).
22
23
24

On a separate matter, Plaintiff’s motion requests video footage regarding an
incident at San Quentin State Prison approximately one month ago, but states that he is,
“in a E.O.P. Mental Program, From Fire Camp.” (ECF No. 59, 1). It is thus unclear from

25
26
27
28

Court did not previously grant such a subpoena. As of the date of this order, the only subpoena request
Plaintiff has submitted to the Court was a subpoena duces tecum on the San Diego County Sheriff, which
was granted. (ECF Nos. 10, 11).
5
Although it appears that on two occasions Plaintiff was moved to Sierra Conservation Center in
Jamestown, Plaintiff has not alleged any claims against staff at that facility. (See ECF Nos. 9, 35).

2

1

Plaintiff’s motion where he is currently located. The Court reminds Plaintiff that if his

2

address changes, he must keep the Court updated by filing a notice of change of address.

3

L.R. 183(b).

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

5

1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting subpoenas to produce video footage of San Quentin State
Prison correctional officers, dated July 18, 2024, and on SCC Jamestown, is DENIED.

6
7

2. Should Plaintiff change addresses, he is directed to file a notice of change of address
with the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 183(b).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

August 28, 2024

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3