Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290-10/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

1

 Verified complaints and oppositions constitute opposing affidavits for purposes of the summary judgment

rule if they are based on facts within the pleader’s personal knowledge. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-

1400 (9th Cir. 1998). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MAURICE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6290-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO

PROVIDE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

(Doc. 65) 

Plaintiff David Maurice Gomez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 19, 2005, defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment. On August 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring

defendants to provide photographic evidence to plaintiff and the court. Defendants did not file a

response.

Defendants, as the parties moving for summary judgment, are entitled to draft their motion

as they see fit and submit the evidence of their choosing, as long as their motion does not run afoul

of applicable rules or orders. That they could have submitted a photograph of the top tier of cells

in Unit 4A-2R but choose not to does not provide a basis upon which plaintiff or the court may

require them to submit this evidence. It appears that plaintiff is competent as a lay witness to set

forth in a declaration or opposing brief a description of the cell doors.1 Thus, if plaintiff disputes

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/12/05 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

defendants’ description of the cell doors set forth in their motion, plaintiff has the ability to raise this

dispute before the court without photographic evidence.

To the extent that plaintiff’s request may be construed as a discovery request, discovery

closed on April 12, 2005. Further, even if discovery was still open, discovery requests must be

served on the opposing parties. They are not to be filed with the court unless they pertain to a

dispute that requires court intervention. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a court order requiring defendants to submit

photographic evidence, filed August 12, 2005, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2