Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00752-22/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

DONALD JEFFERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. T. A. BENNGE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00752-SMS PC

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE MOTION

TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND

STRIKING PITCHESS MOTION

(Docs. 91-94)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Donald Jeffery,

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2006,

and it is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Cantu and Knight

for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On February 4, 2010, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for

sanctions filed on October 13, 2009, and issued an amended scheduling order. On February 11,

2010, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel and for sanctions which is virtually identical to the

motion to compel and for sanctions filed on October 13, 2009. The February 11 motion was dated

on February 2, 2010, prior to the issuance of the ruling on the October 13 motion to compel. 

It is inappropriate for Plaintiff to file a second motion raising issues duplicative of those at

issue in a pending motion. Plaintiff is required to await a ruling on pending motions. If Plaintiff

again files a motion seeking relief identical to that being sought in a pending motion, Plaintiff will

be subject to sanctions for abuse of process. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 95 Filed 02/18/10 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

2123 (1991). The duplicative motion to compel and for sanctions filed on February 11, 2010, shall

be stricken from the record. 

Plaintiff also filed a Pitchess motion on February 11, 2010. A Pitchess motion relates to

criminal proceedings and is misplaced in this federal civil action. See People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th

1216, 1219-20 (2001) (a Pitchess motion allows a criminal defendant to compel discovery of

evidence from arresting officer’s personnel file). Plaintiff must seek discovery in compliance with

the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which requires Plaintiff to serve Defendants with a request

for the production of documents. If Defendants object to the request and Plaintiff believes the

documents are discoverable, Plaintiff’s recourse is to file a motion to compel. Plaintiff may not file

a request for documents from Defendants’ personnel files directly with the Court, and his

inappropriate Pitchess motion shall be stricken from the record.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions, and Pitchess motion,

filed on February 11, 2010, are HEREBY ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 95 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2