Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-32/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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR.,

Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER

(ECF NO. 108)

Roberto M. Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew 

M. Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

(ECF No. 11). On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its order 

granting the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)’s motion to 

reconsider. (ECF No. 108). Because the relief Plaintiff seeks is unnecessary because it is already 

contained in the Court’s prior order, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider will be denied.

 

1

On May 9, 2014, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order dismissing all other claims from this 

action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19).

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 109 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

On August 24, 2016, this Court issued an Order requiring the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to “provide Plaintiff with all documents withheld under 

the official information privilege and provided in camera to the Court in its July 25, 2016 

submission.” (ECF No. 96, p.2). The Court further ordered that “[t]o the extent that Plaintiff’s 

confinement prevents him from viewing or listening to such evidence, the CDCR shall make 

available a mechanism for Plaintiff to review such evidence consistent with the CDCR’s security 

measures within 30 days from delivery to Plaintiff.” (Id.).

On September 7, 2016, the CDCR filed a motion to reconsider. (ECF No. 99). Because 

the evidence that the CDCR was supposed to turnover was on compact discs, and because 

California inmates are not allowed to possess compact discs unless they are factory sealed and 

pre-recorded, the CDCR requested that the Court modify its order of August 24, 2016, to allow 

the litigation office to hold the compact discs. (Id., p.2). The CDCR would then make the discs 

available for Plaintiff to review. (Id.) 

On September 9, 2016, the Court granted the CDCR’s motion. (ECF No. 101). The order 

states, in pertinent part, “[i]f Plaintiff’s incarceration ends while this case is still pending, the 

CDCR shall make the discs available to Plaintiff at that time.” (Id., p.2).

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion to reconsider its 

order of August 24, 2016. (ECF No. 108). Plaintiff states that he was hospitalized on September 

21, 2016, and was therefore unable to view the discs on the scheduled date of September 22, 

2016. (Id. at 2). On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff was able to get to the scheduled viewing, but 

the mechanism provided by the CDCR was damaged and did not work. (Id.). Presumably 

because Plaintiff is being released soon, Plaintiff requests an order requiring the CDCR to send

the discs to either Michael McKneely (the attorney who handled the settlement conference for 

Plaintiff) or the Clerk of Court, and directing that, upon Plaintiff’s release, McKneely or the Clerk 

of Court forward the discs to Plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3). 

Because the August 24, 2016 order already directs the CDCR to make the discs available 

to Plaintiff upon his release, the relief Plaintiff is requesting is unnecessary. If the CDCR fails to 

make the discs available to Plaintiff upon his release, Plaintiff can file a motion to compel and/or 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 109 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 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

3

a motion for sanctions. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 108) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 109 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3