Manago v. Williams, et al

Filing 233

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/13/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 232 motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; plaintiff shall file no further matters in support of his motion, but is GRANTED relief as provided by this order; within 10 days, counsel for defendant Brockett shall (a) File under seal, and serve on plaintiff, one copy of the full transcript of the proceedings described in this order; or (b) show cause why counsel is uanble to comply with this orde r; also within 10 days, ALL defense counsel shall file under seal, and serve on plaintiff, all available transcripts of any audio recordings that have already been submitted to the court; failure of any counsel, without adequate explanation, to provide both the court and plaintiff with a transcript of any audio recording submitted in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:07-cv-2290 LKK KJN P

vs.

13

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at the California Correctional

16
17

Institution (“CCI”), who proceeds, in forma pauperis and without counsel, in this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed two motions for summary

19

judgment, which are now fully briefed. Presently pending is plaintiff’s June 4, 2012 motion

20

requesting the court’s authorization fo file a motion for reconsideration of this court’s order filed

21

April 9, 2012.1 In pertinent part, that order directed defense counsel for defendant Brockett to

22

return confidential audio and written material to the CCI Legal Affairs Office, for the purpose of

23
24
25
26

1

As noted in the court’s April 9, 2012 order, due to plaintiff’s prolific filings, it became
necessary for “[p]laintiff [to] request[] permission of the court . . . due to the court’s prior
instruction that plaintiff refrain from filing any further documents in this court, or from
corresponding with defense counsel, without prior court authorization. (See Dkt. No. 211 at 1-2;
Dkt. No. 206 at 4-5.)” (Dkt. No. 228 at 1.)
1

1

according plaintiff additional opportunity to access the material, and additional time to respond

2

to the material in a surreply. Defense counsel filed a notice of compliance with the court’s order.

3

Plaintiff thereafter filed a surreply, rendering the motions for summary judgment fully briefed.
Nevertheless, in the present motion, plaintiff states that he was not given access to

4
5

the audio files, or the transcript, of the relevant testimony of defendants Brockett and Chapman

6

before the State Personnel Board, relative to the termination of defendant Brockett (Case No. 06-

7

0655). The court’s review of this confidential material, submitted under seal by defense counsel,

8

indicates that there were three days of hearings over a nine-month period, on May 2, 2007,

9

January 24, 2008, and February 25, 2008. The audio quality is poor, and it appears that no

10

transcript of these proceedings has been provided to the court, although the administrative law

11

judge stated at the first hearing that transcripts could be requested.
Accordingly, defendant Brockett will be required to provide both plaintiff and the

12
13

court a copy of the full transcript of these proceedings, or show cause why this task cannot be

14

completed. After defense counsel has complied with this order, the court will address the

15

necessity of a supplemental briefing schedule in this case, due both to the supplemental material,

16

and the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Woods v. Carey, __F.3d __, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th

17

Cir., July 06, 2012).

18

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 232), is denied in part and granted in part; plaintiff

20

shall file no further matters in support of his motion but is granted relief as provided herein.
2. Within ten (10) days after the filing date of this order, counsel for defendant

21
22
23

Brockett shall:
A.

File under seal, and serve on plaintiff, one copy each of the full transcript
of the above-described proceedings; OR

24
25

B.

Show cause why counsel is unable to comply with this order.

26

3. Also within ten (10) days after the filing date of this order, ALL defense
2

1

counsel shall file under seal, and serve on plaintiff, all available transcripts of any audio

2

recordings that have already been submitted to the court; any transcripts submitted and served

3

pursuant to this order shall be specifically identified in an accompanying separate statement filed

4

under seal with the court, and served on plaintiff.

5

4. Failure of any counsel, without adequate explanation, to provide both the court

6

and plaintiff with a transcript of any audio recording submitted in this case may result in the

7

imposition of sanctions.

8
9

SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 13, 2012

10
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13

mana2290.ord.re.PB.audio

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3