Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02059/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02059-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Pinson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Party, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02059-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On February 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s 

summary judgment issued in favor of Defendants Mendez and Alvarez and the dismissal 

of the Privacy Act claim. On remand, this Court denied Defendants qualified immunity, 

and the Eighth Amendment case against Mendez and Alvarez was ready for trial. 

Following remand, Defendant, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), was served and 

answered. Discovery related to the Privacy Act claim commenced on May 3, 2019 to end 

on August 12, 2019. (Order (Doc. 105)). On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 

Compel. Although discovery had closed, Defendant BOP agreed to make further 

disclosures, pursuant to a Protective Order. On November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff viewed 

this discovery. Now, he complains that the disclosures were “incomplete or completely 

useless and fully redacted records (like an inmate roster with all identities blacked out).”

(Renewed Motion to Compel (Doc. 127)). Undermining this assertion, he intends to use it 

at trial, as follows: “(1) All memorandums authored by J. Garner, Jordan Peters, and T. 

Kilmer, (2) The intelligence search document, (3) All of the photographs, (4) Incident 

Case 4:13-cv-02059-BGM Document 136 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Report 2485597, (5) document entitled Inmate Discipline Update dated 8-23-13, (6) Memo 

for S. Snider dated 8-23-13, (7) Health Services Clinical Encounter, (8) Form 583.” 

(Response, Ex. 131-1: 11-20-2019 Pinson Memo to Bastron.)

Plaintiff renews his Motion to Compel or alternatively seeks new discovery as 

follows: 1) An unredacted 8-28-13 inmate roster because he seeks to use these inmates as 

witnesses, 2) the full DHO packet for the Incident Report 2485597, and 3) the FBI referral 

referenced in the Inmate Discipline Update dated 8-23-13. Id. Again, although discovery

has closed, the Defendant agrees to disclose the Incident Report materials and the FBI 

referral. (Response (Doc. 131) at 2 n.1.) Therefore, the only discovery at issue is the 

allegedly “completely redacted” inmate roster dated 8-28-2013, which according to the 

Plaintiff contains the names of witnesses he wants to call at trial. The Defendant does not 

address the redactions made to the inmate roster. The Defendant shall explain the 

redactions, and the Plaintiff may file a Reply. THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER 

DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE. The case is ready for trial.

A Joint Pretrial Order was filed on December 30, 2019. Normally, the Court would 

set the case for a Pretrial Conference whereat a trial date will be set. However, before this 

can occur, the Court must secure trial counsel for the Plaintiff.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Motion to Compel (Doc. 127) is GRANTED 

as follows: 1) Defendant shall disclose the DHO packet for the Incident Report and the FBI 

referral referenced in the Inmate Discipline Update.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 7 days of the filing date of this Order, 

the Defendant shall file its Response to present any objections to disclosing the redacted 

names on the 8-28-23 Inmate Roster, and thereafter within 7 days, the Plaintiff shall file a 

Reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT NO FURTHER DISCOVERY SHALL BE 

CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE, except as referenced above.

Case 4:13-cv-02059-BGM Document 136 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Counsel (Doc. 126) is 

GRANTED, and that subsequent to securing pro bono counsel to represent the Defendant 

at trial, the Court shall issue an Order appointing counsel and setting the case for a Pretrial 

Conference.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2020.

Case 4:13-cv-02059-BGM Document 136 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3