Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-12/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06636-AWI-SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 77)

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Charles Chatman (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed September 1, 2004, against defendants Winett, Vazquez,

Fortson, Lundy, and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and defendants

Winett, Vazquez, Lundy, Traynham, Mack, Wells, Jimenez, Duran, Bowman, and Johnson for

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a timely motion to compel a further response to his request

for the production of documents. Defendants Winett, Vazquez, Fortson, Lundy, Johnson, Traynham,

Mack, Wells, Jimenez, Duran, and Bowman (“defendants”) filed an opposition on July 21, 2006, and

plaintiff filed a reply on August 17, 2006. A telephonic hearing to resolve plaintiff’s motion to

compel was held on October 17, 2006, and plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted in part. 

///

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 81 Filed 12/20/06 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

27

28

2

Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff with an un-redacted copy of the memorandum to F. B.

Haws from C. Fortson, dated December 31, 2002, on or before October 31, 2006.

On November 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking sanctions against defendants on the

ground that the copy they provided was altered. Defendants filed an opposition on November 20,

2006, and plaintiff filed a reply on December 14, 2006.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff contends that the memorandum, which lists the names of twenty-seven inmates

including plaintiff, was altered because plaintiff’s cellmate’s name is missing from the list and the

memo lists additional inmates who were not placed in administrative segregation at the same time

as plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to comply with the court’s order because they

did not provide him with the names of all inmates placed in administrative segregation on December

9, 2002, at approximately 7:30 p.m. In response to defendants’ opposition that plaintiff’s motion

is frivolous, plaintiff contends that defendants have submitted no evidence refuting his charge that

the memo was altered and elaborates further on why the memo is inaccurate. Plaintiff contends that

eleven inmates were sent to administrative segregation with himon December 9, 2002, yet the memo

lists twenty-seven inmates, only eight of which were in the group of eleven.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is baseless. Plaintiff is misrepresenting the court’s order to

defendants, and plaintiff’s motion is not supported by any evidence that the copy provided to him

was altered.

First, defendants were not ordered to provide plaintiff with the names of all inmates placed

in administrative segregation at the same time as plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion was one to compel the

production of an un-redacted copy ofthe memo in question. The motion was granted and defendants

provided an un-redacted copy, thereby discharging their duty under the court’s order. With respect

to this document production request, defendants were not and are not under any obligation to create

documents for plaintiff or to provide plaintiff with any information outside of producing the unredacted memo.

With respect to the charge of alteration, the court has viewed the copy provided by plaintiff

and there is nothing about the appearance of the document that suggests it was altered. (Doc. 77,

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 81 Filed 12/20/06 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

27

28

3

pgs. 11, 13.) Further, the memo states, in relevant part, “Based on information revealed in those

interviews, the inmates listed below were re-housed in Administrative Segregation pending an

investigation into the aforementioned disturbance.” (Id., pg. 11.) The memo makes no

representation that the inmates listed were limited to those placed in administrative segregation on

December 9, 2002, at approximately 7:30 p.m. along with plaintiff. 

Regardless, the alleged fact that the memo does not contain certain names that plaintiff

believes it should contain or that the memo contains names that plaintiff believes it should not

contain is immaterial to this proceeding. Plaintiff sought production of an un-redacted copy and was

provided with one. There is no legal basis for plaintiff to seek sanctions in this proceeding over the

contents of the document provided, absent evidence that plaintiff was not provided with an unredacted copy or that the un-redacted copy was tampered with in conjunction with turning the

document over to plaintiff. There is no such evidence.

Plaintiff’s contention in his reply that defendants’ failed to address the supplemental reports

provided with his motion, which list the names of fifty-seven inmates, is unavailing. Defendants are

not required to respond to such evidence, as it is irrelevant to their duty to provide an un-redacted

copy of the memo to plaintiff. Plaintiff may not parlay the grant of his request for an un-redacted

copy of the memo into a fishing expedition for other documents or any other information outside of

the memo.

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBYORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed

November 7, 2006, is DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 81 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 3