Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830-36/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

GRADY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants used excessive force in violation of his rights under the 

Eighth Amendment. In an order filed May 7, 2024, this court ordered defendants to cause 

plaintiff’s current place of incarceration to permit plaintiff to communicate with four inmate 

witnesses. (ECF No. 185.) Defendants seek clarification or reconsideration of the order. (ECF 

No. 188.) Defendants ask the court to clarify the permissible method(s) of communication. 

Specifically, defendants request that plaintiff’s communication be limited to written 

correspondence with the inmate witnesses. Defendants cite the complications and potential 

security issues involved in permitting plaintiff to engage in other types of communication. 

This court finds the bases for defendants’ request reasonable and further finds that written 

correspondence should be sufficient to permit plaintiff to communicate with the four inmate 

witnesses. If plaintiff wishes to communicate with the four inmate witnesses in another way, he 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 189 Filed 05/30/24 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

shall file a request to do so. In any such request, plaintiff must explain why written 

correspondence is not adequate to obtain the information he requires.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Defendants’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 188) of the court’s May 7 order is 

granted; and

2. The May 7, 2024 order is amended to specify that, absent another court order or the 

approval of an authorized prison representative, plaintiff may communicate with the 

four inmate witnesses identified in the May 7 order only by written correspondence. 

Dated: May 29, 2024

DLB:9

DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/harr0830.5 7 order amend

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 189 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 2