Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALICESON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 

(ECF No. 89)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW (ECF No. 90)

ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA 

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE 

TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SETS 

ONE AND THREE

SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The action 

proceeds against Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference and state law negligence claims. 

On June 3, 2015, the Court issued an order addressing, inter alia, Plaintiff’s 

February 9, 2015 motion to compel a further response to his Requests for Production 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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

of Documents, Sets One and Three. (ECF No. 84.) The Court therein ordered 

Defendants to produce to the Court for in camera review an October 14, 2011 

Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison, and a July 23, 2011 

Confidential Information Memorandum from Lt. S. Alva to Captain E. Smith.

On July 3, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of request to seal documents (ECF 

No. 89) and a request for in camera review (ECF No. 90). Defendants electronically 

submitted to the Court a request to seal documents and the two memoranda at issue.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for in camera review, setting forth his reasons 

why the memoranda should be disclosed. (ECF No. 95.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF 

No. 96.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Request to Seal Documents

Defendants filed a request to seal the memoranda at issue. (ECF No. 89.)

The court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence. The parties 

may not file evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into 

question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment or at trial). The cases cited 

by Defendants in support of their request to seal involve evidence submitted for review 

in relation to the merits of the case. In contrast, the instant matter involves a discovery 

dispute over whether the memoranda must be released to Plaintiff. There presently is 

no basis for filing the memoranda with the Court, whether sealed or otherwise.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to file the documents under seal will be denied.

Notwithstanding this ruling, the electronic documents submitted for in camera 

review will not be disclosed to Plaintiff absent further order of the Court and an 

opportunity for Defendants to respond. The Court will retain the documents submitted 

for in camera review pending resolution of this case, at which time it will destroy the 

documents or return them to Defendants.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Request for In Camera Review

Defendants filed a request for in camera review of the memoranda at issue.

(ECF No. 90.) However, Defendants previously were ordered to submit the 

memoranda for in camera review. (ECF No. 84.) Accordingly, the request for in camera 

review is unnecessary. Nevertheless, because the documents have been reviewed in 

camera and are addressed herein, the request for in camera review will be granted.

C. Ruling Following In Camera Review of Memoranda

1. Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison

Plaintiff claims that the October 14, 2011 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. 

Ramirez to Warden Allison is relevant because it was written in response to complaints 

Plaintiff made against Defendants. Defendants counter that the memorandum is not 

relevant because the outcome of any investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations is not 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. 

The Court has reviewed the memorandum and is unable to divine any relevance 

it may have to this action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants 

retaliated against him for various complaints and grievances by terminating his 

Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) level of care, which resulted in an adverse 

change in Plaintiff’s housing. However, the memorandum at issue was written in 

response to allegations made by Plaintiff after the alleged retaliation already occurred. 

It reflects that Plaintiff continued to complain about the pre-retaliation conduct of 

various employees at his institution, even after he allegedly was retaliated against. It 

also reflects Plaintiff’s belief that Defendants retaliated against him. It does not purport 

to validate any of Plaintiff’s allegations. It does not appear to have any bearing on any 

fact of consequence in this litigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 (“Evidence is relevant if: (a) 

it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”). Nor is it likely 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for requiring Defendants to disclose this 

document to Plaintiff.

2. Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith.

Plaintiff claims that this confidential memorandum is relevant to show that 

Defendant Garcia informed another inmate of Plaintiff’s commitment offense, which 

resulted in enemy concerns for Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that this disclosure violated 

various laws and reflects poorly on Defendant Garcia in various ways.

The instant action does not involve any claim that Defendant Garcia unlawfully 

revealed Plaintiff’s commitment offense to another inmate. Moreover, the Court has 

reviewed the July 23, 2011 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith 

and has determined that it has absolutely no relevance to any Defendant or claim 

involved in this action. Plaintiff’s claim that the memorandum reflects poorly on 

Defendant Garcia is completely unsupported. There is no basis for requiring 

Defendants to disclose this memorandum in the course of this litigation.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request to seal (ECF No. 89) is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ request for in camera review (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED to 

the extent Defendants’ documents have been reviewed herein; and

3. Defendants are not required to disclose to Plaintiff either the October 14, 

2011 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison, 

or the July 23, 2011 Confidential Information Memorandum from Lt. S. 

Alva to Captain E. Smith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 5