Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-19/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

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID NORMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01022-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF”S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MRIs AND

VIDEO

(Doc. 70)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

REPLY

(Doc. 103)

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint

commencing this action on August 9, 2005. (Doc. 1). This action now proceeds on the Third

Amended Complaint, filed on October 30, 2008, against Defendants Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran

andManuel Torres (“Defendants”) for events that occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility, Corcoran. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. On July 20,

2010, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of March 20, 2011, for

completion of discovery, including motions to compel, and a deadline of May 31, 2011, for filing

pretrial dispositive motions. (Docs. 59, 77). On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

Defendants to provide to the Court a video tape taken of Plaintiff on November 4, 2003, and

radiographs of MRIs taken on December 5, 2005. (Doc. 70). In response to a Court order,

Defendants filed an opposition on June 9, 2011. (Doc. 102). Plaintiff did not file a reply. Rather,

on June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply. 

1

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 104 Filed 06/24/11 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

In his motion, Plaintiff requests for the MRIs and video to be held in Court custody pursuant

to local rule 138(f). It appears from the documents and declarations attached to Plaintiff’s motion

that Plaintiff is inappropriately attempting to issue subpoenas duces tecum, when the proper

procedure requires first that the Court grants a motion for subpoena duces tecum before such

subpoena is served on individuals who are not parties to this action. 

In response to Plaintiff’s request to produce the video of the interview, Defendants respond

that they do have access to the DVD of the interview in question and that Plaintiff is able to review

the DVD in the litigation coordinator’s office and that Defendants will produce said video at trial

which appears to meet Plaintiff’s request of having the DVD in Court custody. Additionally, since

Plaintiff has moved prisons, Defendants state that they do not have access to Plaintiff’s medical

records and MRIs since such records would be in the custody of the prison where Plaintiff is

currently housed and Plaintiff should direct his request accordingly. (Doc. 102). 

Plaintiff has the ability to view the video on his own accord and the video will be available

should there be a trial. Moreover, since Plaintiff and his medical records are no longer located at

Corcoran and Defendants do not have custody or control of Plaintiff’s medical files, Plaintiff can

request for his medical files from officials at Kern Valley State prison. Based on the foregoing,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of video and MRIs is DENIED. (Doc. 70). Moreover, as

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for extending the time allotted to file a reply, Plaintiff’s

motion for extension fo time is DENIED. (Doc. 103). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 104 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 2