Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-40/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:03-CV-6636 AWI SMS P

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION DISCLOSURE OF

DEFENDANT DURAN’S

CONVICTION AND GRANTING

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Documents #163 & #170)

Plaintiff Charles Chapman is proceeding with a prisoner civil rights action. This

action is proceeding to trial on the following claims: (1) A First Amendment retaliation claim

arising out of Plaintiff’s placement in the SHU; (2) An Eighth Amendment claim in which

Plaintiff alleges Defendant exposed him to freezing temperatures; and (3) An Eighth Amendment

claim stemming from Plaintiff’s placement and retention in a flooded cell. 

On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel disclosure of Defendant Duran’s

conviction. On August 31, 2009, the court held a telephonic status conference. During this

conference, the court addressed Plaintiff’s motion concerning Defendant Duran. The court reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to obtain information about

Defendant Duran’s criminal conviction and judgement. The court also signed the parties’

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 171 Filed 01/11/10 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

stipulation that Defendant Duran could be deposed by video conference. 

On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for a copy of the court’s Pretrial Order

following the telephonic trial confirmation hearing. The court is issuing this order with the

court’s Pretrial Order, and as such, the court has addressed Plaintiff’s October 5, 2009 request.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of Defendant Duran’s conviction is

GRANTED and discovery is reopened for this limited purpose; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the court’s Pretrial Order is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 171 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 2