Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 “Any notes plaintiff chooses to take shall be for his eyes only and shall not be reviewed 1

by opposing counsel or any employees of the California Department of Corrections.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER OATEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2006 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s November 29, 2004

third amended complaint. On December 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion

for Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” (Docket No.

105.) However, the essence of plaintiff’s motion is that defendants violated this court’s October

11, 2005 protective order. The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion for sanctions for 1

defendants’ alleged violation of the October 11, 2005 protective order. Plaintiff seeks an order

forbidding defendants and CDC employees from compromising the privacy of case-sensitive

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 “Any notes plaintiff chooses to take shall be for his eyes only and shall not be reviewed 2

by opposing counsel or any employees of the California Department of Corrections.”

2

material and from handling legal material outside plaintiff’s presence. On January 3, 2006, the

court issued a briefing notice on plaintiff’s motion. Defendants’ opposition was due not more

than 21 days after the date of the notice. That date has passed and defendants have not filed an

opposition.

After holding a telephonic status conference, counsel for defendants was directed,

by order filed March 1, 2006, to file a declaration addressing the December 14, 2005 search of

plaintiff’s cell. Counsel was directed to file the declaration under seal and the court would

review the document in camera. The court now turns to plaintiff’s motion. 

Plaintiff contends he has been injured because correctional officers read his legal

materials, particularly information he had obtained during a document review in violation of this

court’s October 11, 2005 protective order. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in which he declares 2

that when two correctional officers approached his cell for a random cell search, plaintiff showed

them the protective order. (Affidavit at 1.) Plaintiff states Officer Maces read the order and then

“expressed his refusal to recognize the order’s details and that he would look through all matter

within the cell, including material plaintiff claims to be legal.” (Id. at 1-2.) These officers then

ordered plaintiff to wait outside the view of the cell. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff declares the search

lasted for 55 minutes until Building Unit Sgt. Bonales approached and asked plaintiff why he

was outside his cell during a state of lockdown. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states he explained the

situation and showed Sgt. Bonales the protective order. (Id.) Plaintiff states Sgt. Bonales

escorted plaintiff in view of the cell and then the sergeant “spoke quietly” to the two officers and

the cell search ended. (Id.) Plaintiff declares that upon his return to the cell he noted the

“disarray and, specifically, to substantial amounts of legal material clearly handled by the

officers.” (Id.) Plaintiff states the sergeant “indicated he would contact the prison’s Litigation

Coordinator about the breach.” (Id.) 

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

The court has performed the in camera review. Based on that review, the court

finds that defendants did not violate the October 11, 2005 protective order and will deny

plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of sanctions. Defendants provided a legitimate penological

reason for searching plaintiff’s cell.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 29, 2005

motion is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: May 4, 2006.

/001; oate2006.tro

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 3