Garces v. Pickett et al

Filing 153

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/7/2021 DENYING plaintiff's 152 motion to compel. At this time, defendants are no longer required to provide plaintiff with copies of any portions of his confidential central file related to his transfer to High Desert State Prison that identified any safety concerns related to the 2-5ers gang generally. If defendants discover documentation showing that Zamora was a known member of the 2-5ers gang prior to his assault on plaintiff, they will be obligated to provide the documentation related to plaintiff's safety concerns. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:17-cv-0319 JAM AC P

ORDER

J. PICKETT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17
18

§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 152. He alleges that defendants have failed to

19

comply with this court’s order compelling discovery.
By order filed March 16, 2021, the undersigned partially granted plaintiff’s motion to

20
21

compel and accordingly ordered defendants to “ensure that plaintiff is provided an opportunity to

22

review the non-confidential portion of his central file and make any necessary copies.” ECF No.

23

145 at 8. Defendants were also required to provide plaintiff with any portions of his confidential

24

central file, redacted as necessary, “related to his transfer to High Desert State Prison that

25

identified any safety concerns related to inmate Zamora specifically or the 25ers gang generally.”

26

Id.

27
28

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to compel in which he alleges that he has been denied
access to both the non-confidential and confidential sections of his central file. ECF No. 152. He
1

1

alleges that on May 24, 2021, he was taken to a room to review a computerized version of his

2

non-confidential central file only and was not provided any witnesses or assistance. Id. at 1-2.

3

He told his counselor that he wanted to “review [his] original paper documented confidential file

4

and non-confidential file” as ordered by the court.1 Id. at 2. The motion to compel such review

5

will be denied.

6

The court did not order defendants to provide plaintiff an opportunity to review his

7

original paper central file. Nor were they ordered to provide plaintiff with witnesses and

8

assistance. Allowing plaintiff to review an electronic version of the non-confidential portions of

9

his central file complied with the court’s order. With respect to the confidential portion of

10

plaintiff’s central file, the court ordered defendants to provide plaintiff with a very narrow class

11

of documents, if they existed. They were not required to permit plaintiff to review the entire

12

confidential section of his central file.

13

The court notes that in support of their motion for an extension of time, defendants

14

included a copy of their supplemental response regarding plaintiff’s confidential central file. ECF

15

No. 150-2 at 18. The response states that there were no documents indicating that plaintiff had a

16

safety concern with inmate Zamora until after the assault. Id. It further states that while there are

17

documents indicating that plaintiff had safety concerns with some members of the 2-5er gang,

18

because Zamora’s records do not show that he was ever a member of the gang, those documents

19

are now irrelevant and they will move for a protective order to prevent their disclosure if

20

requested by the court. Id.

21

Rather than putting the burden on plaintiff to move to compel or on the court to order

22

them to file a motion for protective order, it was defendants’ obligation to seek relief from the

23

order directing them to provide plaintiff with any documents related to his safety concerns with

24

the 2-5ers if they believed they had grounds to do so. Nevertheless, the court agrees that in the

25

absence of any documentation in Zamora’s file that he was ever a member of the 2-5ers,

26

1

27
28

In support of their recent request for an extension of time, defendants included a statement from
plaintiff’s counselor that states that she attempted to show plaintiff how to navigate the electronic
file, but plaintiff refused to review it, insisted that he needed to review his confidential file, and
walked out of the room. ECF No. 150-2 at 14.
2

1

documents related to plaintiff’s enemy concerns with that group are irrelevant and defendants are

2

relieved of their obligation to provide plaintiff with copies of those documents.2

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 152, is DENIED.

5

2. At this time, defendants are no longer required to provide plaintiff with copies of any

6

portions of his confidential central file related to his transfer to High Desert State Prison that

7

identified any safety concerns related to the 2-5ers gang generally. If defendants discover

8

documentation showing that Zamora was a known member of the 2-5ers gang prior to his assault

9

on plaintiff, they will be obligated to provide the documentation related to plaintiff’s safety

10

concerns.

11

DATED: June 7, 2021

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

2

The complaint alleged that Zamora was a known enemy because he was a known member of
the 2-5ers gang and plaintiff’s file listed the 2-5ers gang and all of its members as plaintiff’s
enemies. ECF No. 1 at 5, 12.
3