Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-13/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

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

PITCHESS MOTION AND RELATED 

FILINGS

(Docs. 48, 49, 52, and 60)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, 

and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution. 

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Pitchess motion. On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff 

sent a letter regarding his Pitchess motion, which was filed. On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for leave to file a Pitchess motion. Defendants filed a response on September 30, 

2013. Plaintiff filed another letter regarding his Pitchess motion on October 7, 2013.

California law provides a statutory process under which a party may file a motion seeking 

discovery or disclosure of peace or custodial officer personnel records. Cal. Evid. Code § 1043. 

Motions filed in accordance with this process are commonly referred to as Pitchess motions. 

Rezek v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 633, 638-39, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 891, 894-95 (Cal. Ct. 

App. 2012) (citing Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531, 522 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1974)).

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 68 Filed 10/25/13 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

This is a federal civil rights lawsuit being litigated in federal court, and the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure apply. A Pitchess motion is improper and will not be recognized in this court. 

Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants directly with discovery requests as governed by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 34. If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with 

Defendants’ responses, or if they fail to respond, he may file a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37. Assuming both parties comply with the appropriate procedures, the Court will weigh the 

potential benefits of personnel record disclosure against the potential disadvantages. Sanchez v. 

City of Santa Ana, 936 F.3d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1985).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion and related filings are HEREBY

DENIED. (Docs. 48, 49, 52, 60.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 68 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 2