Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

GARY RONNELL PERKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D.G. STOCKMAN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5806 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL AFTER IN

CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

[DOCS 27, 37] 

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint and paid the filing fee in full for initiating this

action. Pending before the Court are two motions to compel discovery filed by plaintiff on August 2,

2005 and September 7, 2005. Defendants filed oppositions to the motions on August 17, 2005 and

September 26, 2005. On November 15, 2005, the Court ordered defendants to produce for in camera

review, documents identified in their privilege log. On November 28, 2005, defendants produced 66

pages of documents for which they have asserted the official information privilege.

In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants McEnroe and Montgomery falsely accused him

of being an active participant in a conspiracy to assault a correctional officer. Plaintiff alleges the

false, unfounded and unwarranted accusations led to CDC 114-D Lock Up Orders dated July 1, 2003

and August 19, 2003 which resulted in plaintiff’s retention in administrative segregation for a 92-day

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 45 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

period. Plaintiff alleges defendant Stockman, as chairman of the Institution Classification

Committee, retained plaintiff in administrative segregation despite the absence of disciplinary

reasons or a threat to the security of the institution. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Halberg and

Hense were also involved and responsible for his retention in administrative segregation. Plaintiff

alleges defendants’ actions were taken in retaliation for plaintiff’s civil complaint against prison

officials in Perkins v. Terhune CV 99-20440JW (PR). Plaintiff also alleges that defendants falsely

identified him as a member of the Raymond Avenue Crips and thereby recommended plaintiff’s

retention in administrative segregation and transfer to another institution. 

The present motions deal with defendants’ responses to requests for production of documents

and interrogatories in which plaintiff requests documents and information used by defendants in

placing plaintiff in administrative segregation on July 1, 2003. Plaintiff argues that he needs to

examine and copy the documents in order to prove that defendants did not receive information which

identified him as a co-conspirator to assault the correctional staff as alleged in the CDC 114 D dated

July 1, 2003. 

Defendants argue that the issue is moot because it has already been established that following

the investigation conducted by prison personnel, no information surfaced connecting plaintiff to the

conspiracy. Defendants argue this is clearly noted in an August 12, 2003 CDC 128-B chrono which

is part of plaintiff’s C-file and which is already in plaintiff’s possession as he refers to it in his

declaration. Defendants argue there is no issue whether there are any documents that identify

plaintiff as a co-conspirator and therefore there is no need to compel additional discovery from

defendants so plaintiff can “prove” that he was not identified as a co-conspirator.

Defendants have also asserted the official information privilege and identified the protected

documents on a privilege log served with their discovery responses. Defendants represent that the

requested documents consist of investigations performed within the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation and contain information relating to prison gang activity and related

investigations and lists of individuals which may be averse to plaintiff, or vice versa. Defendants

state that disclosure of the document would severely endanger the safety of numerous inmates and

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 45 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

civilians as the documents identify inmates who provided confidential information to the

Department. Defendants argue that the identity of these inmates cannot be protected by simply

redacting their names because the description of events and information, and in some cases the dates,

could reveal the identity of the informants. 

The Court has reviewed the documents submitted by defendants and agrees that the

documents contain highly sensitive information which could, if disclosed, severely endanger the

safety of numerous inmates and civilians. The Court also agrees that the identity of the inmates

cannot be protected by simply redacting their names because the description of the information could

reveal the identity of the informant. 

The documents also have very limited probative value to the issues in this case. At most, the

documents reveal that plaintiff’s name was included on lists of inmates who were possibly members

of the Crips and that he was identified by an inmate as a member of the Crips during a confidential

debriefing. Indeed, defendants have conceded the very point that plaintiff claims he needs the

documents to prove, there was and is no evidence connecting plaintiff to the conspiracy to assault

correctional officers. Given the very sensitive nature of the information, combined with the limited

relevance of the documents, and defendants’ concession, plaintiff’s motions to compel are HEREBY

DENIED.

Notwithstanding, the Court’s Order, defendants are reminded that they will not be permitted

to introduce into evidence at trial any information which was subject to a discovery request by

plaintiff and not provided by defendants. Additionally, where information relied upon by defendants

in support of a motion for summary judgment is such that it cannot be revealed to plaintiff,

defendants must be prepared to address the constitutional issues raised by requesting that a trial court

rely such evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 1, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 45 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 45 Filed 12/02/05 Page 4 of 4