Houston v. Eldridge et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/14/2018 ORDERING, within 21 days, defendants shall provide plaintiff with the redacted grievances, discussed in this order; plaintiff's request that he be permitted to posses the photos taken regarding the incident involving defendants is DENIED; plaintiff's motion to compel is deemed resolved. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM HOUSTON,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2561 WBS KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. ELDRIDGE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2018, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part

19

plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 43.) The undersigned also ordered defendants to file

20

further briefing regarding several of the at-issue discovery requests. (Id.) On March 8, 2018,

21

defendants filed the further briefing in response to the February 22, 2018 order. (ECF No. 51.)

22

The undersigned addresses the outstanding discovery disputes, addressed in defendants’ further

23

briefing, herein.

24

Plaintiff’s Enemy List

25

The undersigned ordered defendants to clarify whether the enemy list provided to plaintiff

26

included and identified plaintiff’s enemies in 2016. (ECF No. 43 at 11.) If the enemy list

27

provided to plaintiff did not reflect plaintiff’s 2016 enemies, the undersigned ordered defendants

28

to provide plaintiff with a list of his 2016 enemies, including which of those inmates were housed
1

1
2

on B-Facility on any dates between February 5, 2016, and July 17, 2016. (Id.)
In their further briefing,defendants state that the enemy list provided to plaintiff during the

3

discovery period reflected his enemies in 2016, but not their locations during the relevant time

4

period of February 5, 2016 through July 17, 2016. (ECF No. 51 at 3.) Defendants have now

5

provided plaintiff with a document showing the plaintiff’s listed enemy’s external movement

6

history to show their location during the relevant time period. (Id.)

7

Defendants have complied with the order directing them to provide plaintiff with

8

information regarding his 2016 enemies and their movement. Accordingly, the motion to compel

9

as to this matter is deemed resolved.

10
11

Request for Grievances
In the motion to compel, plaintiff claimed that defendants failed to provide him with

12

copies of all 602 complaints and citizen complaints charging the defendants with discrimination,

13

racial bias or excessive force. (ECF No. 43 at 7.) Plaintiff also claimed that defendants failed to

14

respond to his request for the names and CDCR identification numbers of the inmates who wrote

15

the 602 and citizen complaints alleging racial bias, discrimination and excessive force. (Id.)

16
17
18

In response to these requests, defendants provided plaintiff with a privilege log identifying
inmate grievances filed in 2014-2017. (Id. at 8.)
In the February 22, 2018 order, the undersigned found that plaintiff was not entitled to

19

grievances alleging racial bias and discrimination because plaintiff did not state a claim for racial

20

discrimination. (Id.) The undersigned also found that plaintiff was not entitled to grievances

21

alleging excessive force against defendant Eldridge because plaintiff did not allege that defendant

22

Eldridge used excessive force. (Id.)

23

In the February 22, 2018 order, the undersigned found that plaintiff was entitled to

24

discovery of grievances filed by other inmates alleging that defendants Brewer, Hyunh,

25

Anderson, Stanfield, Padilla, Nyberg, Morales, Barajas, Stuhr, Rowe and Pacheco used physical

26

violence on an inmate. (Id.) The undersigned stated that he was inclined to find that plaintiff was

27

not entitled to the names of those inmates who filed the grievances based on the security concerns

28

alleged by defendants in the opposition. (Id.) The undersigned ordered defendants to file a
2

1

declaration from an appropriate prison official in support of the claim that disclosure of the names

2

of the inmates named in the grievances could jeopardize the safety of the institution. (Id.)

3

In the March 8, 2018 response, defendants provided a declaration by K. Steele, a Sergeant

4

with the Investigative Services Unit (“ISU”) at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”).

5

(ECF No. 51-1.) Regarding plaintiff’s request for grievances, Sergeant Steele states,

6

Inmates do not have access to other inmates’ central files. An
inmate’s central file, which includes inmate grievances, is only
available to that inmate and designated correctional staff in order to
protect the inmate’s privacy rights. Non-party inmate grievances
can include information such as the identify of all inmates and
officers involved in a particular incident, what their actions were,
what they may have said, their injuries (vulnerabilities), and may
include a transcript of a disciplinary hearing and the charges or
sentence brought as a result. Plaintiff could disclose those 602
grievances to other inmates, which could enable inmates to
manipulate staff or extort others, and also put defendants’ safety at
risk. Disclose would also chill the flow of information provided by
inmate-grievants, witnesses, victims, and informants, who may fear
being identified. Identifying participants in the grievance process
would subject those participants to potential manipulation, extortion
or reprisals by other inmates. Maintaining the confidentiality of
such information discourages disturbances and promotes the safety
and security of inmates and staff in the correctional setting.
Releasing appeal documents from another inmates’s central file to
Mr. Houston would also create safety and security risks for that
inmate, and possibly, whatever institution that inmate is currently
housed. Once given that information, Mr. Houston could distribute
to whoever he chooses.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

(Id. at 2-3.)

19

The declaration of Sergeant Steele demonstrates that disclosure to plaintiff of the

20

identities of the inmates who filed the grievances, as well as the identities of any other inmates

21

involved in the grievances (such as witnesses) could jeopardize institutional safety and security.

22

Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to this information. Defendants shall redact the names and

23

all other identifying information, i.e., cell number, CDCR identification number, etc., of any

24

inmate identified in the at-issue grievances. Defendants shall then provide plaintiff with copies of

25

the redacted grievances, identified in the privilege log previously provided to plaintiff, within

26

twenty-one days of the date of this order.1

27
28

1

If defendants determine that additional redactions are warranted in order to preserve institutional
safety and security, they shall notify the court.
3

1

Photographs

2

In the motion to compel, plaintiff requested copies of photos taken regarding the incident

3

involving defendants. (ECF No. 43 at 9.) In response, defendants stated that they provided the

4

photos for plaintiff’s inspection in the litigation coordinator’s office at CSP-Sac. (Id.)

5

Defendants argued that allowing plaintiff to possess the photos could endanger the safety of

6

inmates and staff. (Id.)

7

In the February 22, 2018 order, the undersigned directed defendants to provide a

8

declaration by a responsible official in support of their claim that allowing plaintiff to possess the

9

photos would jeopardize institutional security. (Id. at 10.) Sergeant Steele’s declaration

10

addresses the security concerns regarding plaintiff’s request to possess the photos:

11

Releasing photographs of the institution itself has the potential to
seriously compromise institutional safety and security because there
is no way to ensure this information will not be distributed to the
inmate population, or potentially be released to the general public
via social media or by other means. Maintaining the confidentiality
of such photographs discourages inmate disturbances, potential
disturbances from non-inmates, and promotes the safety and
security of inmates and staff in the correctional setting by limiting
the information available to inmates and their associates regarding
the physical layout, facilities, and equipment of the prison, which
could be used in planning or carrying out an escape, riot or other
disturbance.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

(ECF No. 51-1 at 3.)

19

The declaration of Sergeant Steele demonstrates that allowing plaintiff to possess the

20

photos could jeopardize institutional safety and security. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to

21

possess the photos is denied.

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
4

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defendants shall provide plaintiff with

3
4
5
6
7

the redacted grievances, discussed above;
2. Plaintiff’s request that he be permitted to possess the photos taken regarding the
incident involving defendants is denied;
3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is deemed resolved.
Dated: March 14, 2018

8
9
10

Hou2561.fb

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5