Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503-25/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

DIJON KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. FLORES,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER APPROVING ADDITIONAL 

REDACTIONS

(ECF NO. 101)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. The matter is before the 

Court on a discovery dispute between the parties.

Following a January 13, 2017 conference, the Court ordered that certain 

documents be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel, some of them pursuant to a protective 

order. (ECF No. 97.) The Court specified permissible redactions to those documents. 

Defendant sought to redact additional material. (ECF No. 101.) The request was granted 

in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 109.) In addition, the Court reserved its ruling on 

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 111 Filed 02/28/17 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

some of the requested redactions pending Defendant’s submission of same for in 

camera review. (Id.)

On February 27, 2017, Defendant submitted his proposed additional redactions, 

along with an index of the proposed redactions for the Court’s review. (See ECF No. 

110.)

The Court finds that Defendant’s additional proposed redactions seek to remove

references that would reflect whether non-parties were considered co-subjects of the 

investigation by the Office of Investigative Affairs as well as information regarding these

individuals’ rights in relation to their OIA interviews. The Court finds that the redactions 

are both minimal and unrelated to any matter of relevance to this action. Accordingly, the 

redactions are HEREBY APPROVED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to move the 

Court to release such information upon a showing of good cause for same.

Defendant’s obligation to provide the redacted materials to Plaintiff remains 

stayed pending the District Judge’s ruling on Defendant’s objections. (See ECF No.

105.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 111 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2