Reyes v. Franco et al

Filing 9

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen denying without prejudice 3 Motion for Production. (KBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MARK REYES,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-CV-00884-MCA-KBM

GERMAN FRANCO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Mark Reyes’s Motion For Production,
filed on August 1, 2016. [Doc. 3] Plaintiff is incarcerated, appears pro se, and is proceeding in
forma pauperis. In his motion, Plaintiff requests the production of evidence to assist him in the
prosecution of his Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint [Doc. 1], which seeks monetary damages
based on the injuries Plaintiff incurred in a physical fight with another inmate at the Penitentiary of
New Mexico on May 24, 2016 and the alleged unlawful disciplinary segregation and sanctions
imposed on Plaintiff as a result of the fight. Plaintiff requests the production of sixteen different
categories of evidence: (1) camera evidence of the physical fight; (2) camera pictures of the
physical fight; (3) camera pictures of Plaintiff’s injuries; (4) complete names and personnel
profiles of the nurse’s assistants on duty on May 24, 2016; (5) complete names and personnel
profiles of Defendants; (6) all of Plaintiff’s misconduct reports and decision packets; (7) the
complete investigation of the STIU gang unit into the assault; (8) confidential informant status
verifications with complete names and numbers; (9) all notes sent to the Warden in June 2016,
including handwriting samples; (10) transfer orders showing the reasons for the transfer of the
other inmate; (11) Plaintiff’s complete medical file; (12) all of Plaintiff’s photographs and

mugshots from 1994 to 2016; (13) Plaintiff’s complete custody status review file; (14) Plaintiff’s
complete caseworker/classification file; (15) Plaintiff’s complete grievance file; and (16) copies of
Plaintiff’s lawsuits and habeas corpus petitions filed from 2007 to 2016. [Doc. 4] For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff has filed a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint challenging the conditions of his
confinement and, therefore, this case is excluded from the normal pre-trial case management
procedures, including discovery. See D.N.M. LR-Civ. 16.3(d). Because Plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court will screen Plaintiff’s Prisoner Civil
Rights complaint to determine whether it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted” or whether it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” § 1915(A)(a), (b). If all or part of Plaintiff’s Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint
survives screening under § 1915 and any Rule 12(b) motions that may be filed by Defendants, then
the Court will, if appropriate, order a Martinez Report, which is a “court-authorized investigation
and report by prison officials.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). The
Martinez Report will require prison officials to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and “develop a record
sufficient to ascertain whether there are any factual or legal bases for [those] claims.” Id. The
Martinez Report may be used by the Court in deciding whether to grant summary judgment, either
upon one of the parties’ motions or sua sponte, and will contain all materials relevant to Plaintiff’s
claims, including medical records, incident reports, and inmate grievances, among other
documents. Once produced, the Martinez Report will be filed on the docket of this case and
served on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff will then have an opportunity to file a response.
Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint has not yet been screened under § 1915 and a
Martinez Report has not yet been ordered by the Court. Screening of the complaint and, if
2

appropriate, production of the Martinez Report may obviate the need for the production of the
documents identified in Plaintiff’s Motion For Production. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion For
Production will be denied without prejudice as premature.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Production [Doc. 3] is
DENIED without prejudice.

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3