Shumpert v. D. Madrid et al

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 34 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Video Evidence is denied, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 2/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 DRAYDEN D. SHUMPERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) D. MADRID, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:15-cv-02273-JAD-GWF ORDER 13 14 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Video Evidence (ECF No. 34), filed on January 30, 2017. On January 11, 2017, the District Court entered an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay 17 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey. See Order (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff has since moved to lift the stay 18 and requests that the Court compel the production of video surveillance of the incident underlying 19 this litigation. See ECF Nos. 33 and 34. Plaintiff asserts that this video evidence will show that 20 Defendants’ alleged attack on Plaintiff was premeditated and was carried out with excessive force. 21 Motion (ECF No. 34), pg. 3. Because the stay imposed by the District Court has not yet been lifted, 22 Plaintiff’s request is premature. Plaintiff’s request goes to the merits of the claims set forth in his 23 complaint and the proper time to bring such a request would be during discovery. Accordingly, 24 25 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Video Evidence (ECF No. 34) is denied, without prejudice. DATED this 7th day of February, 2017. 27 28 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?