Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02552/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02552-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELADIO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. KNIGHT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2552 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff claims 

defendants used excessive force against him and denied him due process in violation of his rights 

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for 

hearing (ECF No. 36) and his motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 38). For the reasons set forth 

below, the court will deny the motions without prejudice.

I. Request for Hearing

On July 8, 2021, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 33.) 

The order indicated that the parties were permitted to conduct discovery until November 12, 

2021. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion asking the court to order defendants to preserve 

and produce video evidence. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff requests “a Rule 27(a)1 hearing to order an 

1 The court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 sets forth the standards for securing 

deposition testimony. It is not apparent to the court how the standards enumerated in rule 27 

relate to plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 39 Filed 09/10/21 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

2

immediate viewing and inspection of Mule Creek State Prison Facility ‘A’ exercise facility/yard 

video footage coverage for the date of June 3, 2019.” (ECF No. 36 at 1-2.) He further requests 

that the court order the viewing and inspection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

34(a)(1) and (2). (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is concerned that without such order the footage may be 

destroyed.

A. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action.” Information that is within the scope of discovery “need not be admissible in evidence to 

be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any party may serve on 

any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and 

copy any designated documents or electronically stored information . . . which are in the 

possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(1). “[A] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, 

designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Thereafter, the court may 

compel a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or 

response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

Additionally, parties have a duty to preserve evidence that is relevant to pending litigation. 

Kronish v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998). “Once a party knows that litigation is 

reasonably anticipated, the party owes a duty to the judicial system to ensure preservation of 

relevant evidence.” Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1006 (D. Ariz. 

2011). “The duty to preserve is triggered not only when litigation actually commences, but also 

extends to the period before litigation when a party should reasonably know that evidence may be 

relevant to anticipated litigation.” Petit v. Smith, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1105 (D. Ariz. 2014) 

(quotation omitted).

////

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 39 Filed 09/10/21 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

3

B. Analysis

The declaration attached to plaintiff’s motion indicates that he has attempted to obtain 

video footage of the incident giving rise to the claim since the incident took place. (ECF No. 36 

at 3.) Additionally, he states that defendants have provided conflicting statements regarding the 

existence of such footage with some prison officials indicating that it does not exist and others 

stating the footage is too grainy to produce. (Id.) However, the motion does not state that 

plaintiff submitted a request for production of the footage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34. Because it does not appear that plaintiff has submitted a discovery request asking

defendantsto produce the footage, any order from the court directing production of the footage is 

premature.

Moreover, the defendants have a duty to preserve any video evidence of the incident 

giving rise to the claim. Peyton v. Kibler, No. 2:21-cv-0719 JAM KJN P, 2021 WL 3206209 at 

*2 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (defendants have a legal duty to preserve video evidence relevant to 

the case). Thus, there is no need to hold a hearing. Plaintiff is advised that before seeking an 

order from the court compelling production of discovery materials, he should first submit a 

request to defendants as stated in the court’s July 9, 2021 discovery and scheduling order. (See

ECF No. 33 at 6.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a hearing to conduct a viewing and 

inspection of the requested footage will be denied.

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 38.) In support of his 

motion, plaintiff argues the court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford counsel, the 

issues in the case are complex, he “is a layman at law,” and defendants refuse to settle the case. 

(Id. at 1, 4-8.)

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 39 Filed 09/10/21 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

4

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff has cited nothing more than circumstances common to most inmates in support of his 

motion. Additionally, at this stage of the proceedings the court cannot evaluate plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion to appoint 

counsel without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for hearing (ECF No. 36) is denied; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38) is denied.

Dated: September 9, 2021

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/rodr2552.req4hrg.31

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 39 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 4