Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599-14/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

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PITCHESS MOTION,

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 58)

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. Discovery opened on July 1, 

2015, and on September 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Pitchess motion. Given that the motion fails as 

a matter of law, the Court elects to address it without awaiting a response from Defendants. Local 

Rule 230(l). 

A Pitchess motion is a state discovery procedure and is misplaced in this federal civil 

rights action. Riverside Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Stiglitz, 60 Cal.4th 624, 630, 339 P.3d 295, 299

(Cal. 2014) (under California law, a Pitchess motion allows the applicant to seek certain law 

enforcement personnel records upon a showing of good cause) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). Plaintiff is required to seek discovery in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and Rule 34 governs requests for the production of documents. If Defendants serve 

objections to a properly served request for the production of documents and Plaintiff believes the 

documents are discoverable, his recourse is to file a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

37(a). Plaintiff may not file a request for documents from Defendants’ personnel files directly 

with the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2