Draper v. Rosairo et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/9/14 DENYING plaintiff's request for the production of materials from defendant's personnel file. The Clerk is directed to file under seal the materials produced by defendant in camera in order to preserve the record. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN CLINT DRAPER,

12
13
14
15

Civ. No. S-10-0032 KJM EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

D. ROSARIO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On November 27, 2013, this court directed defense counsel to make defendant

19

Rosario’s personnel records available for in camera inspection. ECF No. 112 at 5. Counsel

20

timely provided a copy of the personnel file as well as a separate envelope of “inmate appeals and

21

related litigation records” and the court has now reviewed the records.

22

The court has found nothing relevant to this action in the personnel file itself. The

23
separate collection of appeals and litigation records does contain grievances based on Rosario’s
24
25

alleged use of force filed by three inmates: Ronald Walton, V-82881, John Mitchell, H-38255,

26

and Mario Thompson, T-54097. None of these complaints was upheld and the inmates

27

subsequently filed suit in this court. There are three pages in the collection of documents worth

28
1

1

noting. One, in the “Manager’s Review—First Level Use of Force Incidents” concerning the

2

August 5, 2008 incident with Inmate Walton, the facility captain did check the box “No” next to

3

the inquiry “were staff’s actions following the use of force in compliance with policy, procedure

4
and training?” The narrative following this face sheet says, however, that “Officer Rosario’s
5
6

actions were justified and within the department use of force policy . . . . Staff actions prior,

7

during the use of force incident were in compliance with policy, procedure and training.” As the

8

narrative comports with the October 7, 2008 Staff Complaint Response to Inmate Mitchell, that

9

staff did not violate CDCR policy, the court does not find this one report relevant. Two and

10
11

similarly, in the Warden’s response to Inmate Walton’s grievance No. CSP-S-10-00338, about
defendant Rosario, Warden Swarthout checked the box next to the preprinted line, “The inquiry is

12
13
14

complete. Staff did violate CDCR policy.” Once again, however, the narrative says that
“appellant [Walton] was advised that he failed to provide adequate supporting documentation that

15

clearly indicated evidence of misconduct by CL Rosario.” The court does not find this document

16

relevant. Three, in a Use of Force form concerning Inmate Mitchell, SOL-SF1-08-0241, Facility

17

Captain Peck checked the box suggesting that the use of force was not in compliance with

18

procedures, but once again the narrative says “Officer Rosario’s actions were justified and within

19
the department use of force policy . . . .” The court similarly does not find this relevant.
20
The collection of appeals and litigation records also includes copies of two civil

21
22

rights complaints filed in this court by inmates Michael Haynes, J-78758, and Sean Williams, F-

23

49327. There is no corresponding internal investigation information related to the incidents

24

alleged in these two lawsuits. The court has compared Walton’s, Mitchell’s, and Thompson’s

25

grievance proceedings against the complaints in the Haynes and Williams cases and finds there is

26

nothing in the files that illuminates the incidents described in those complaints.

27
/////
28
2

1
2
3

In light of the fact that Rosario’s alleged excessive use of force against other
inmates has produced civil rights actions available through this court’s PACER system, and the
lack of additional materially relevant information in the files produced by defendant, the court

4
declines to order the production of any of the materials produced in camera.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for the production of materials from defendant’s personnel
file is denied; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the materials produced by
defendant in camera, in order to preserve the record.
Dated: January 9, 2014.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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