Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369-2/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

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5369 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION CONSENTING

TO DEPOSITION AND OPPOSING

MECHANICAL RESTRAINTS (Doc. 146) 

Eric Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Consenting to Deposition and

Objects to Mechanical Restrains and Officers present.” In this document, Plaintiff asks that the

Court issue an Order requiring the CDC to allow Plaintiff to be deposed without any restraints

and disallow the presence of any CDC staff. 

The Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including that discovery be conducted

with no one present except persons designated by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(5). A party

seeking such a protective order must, however, include a certification that he has in good faith

conferred or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in an attempt to resolve the

dispute without court action. Id. In this instance, Plaintiff has not included the required

certification.

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 50 Filed 05/09/05 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

Additionally, Plaintiff is a convicted prisoner in the custody of the California Department

of Corrections. Plaintiff’s provides no compelling justification as to why he must be deposed

without mechanical restraints or outside the presence of CDC staff. His contention is simply

that it is not necessary. The Court will not insert itself into this matter and direct that the

Department allow to be deposed without the presence of a staff member or without restraints. 

As Plaintiff is a convicted prisoner in state custody, the State is charged with making safety and

security determinations of its inmates. 

The Court notes that this is not a situation where Plaintiff is contending that many more

correctional staff will present than necessary or that certain staff members will be present for the

purpose of harassing or intimidating . Regardless, this issue is one that Plaintiff must first

attempt to resolve with defendants’ counsel before seeking intervention by the court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion seeking a court order allowing his deposition to be

conducted outside the presence of California Department of Corrections staff is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 50 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2