Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01144-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL

RECORDS TO DOCTORS CURRENTLY

TREATING PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 45)

Plaintiff Kelly Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking a court order mandating the production of his medical records to the doctors who are

currently treating plaintiff. Defendants did not file a response. 

First, plaintiff may not resort to filing a motion to compel without first attempting to obtain

the needed information via discovery. Specifically, plaintiff may not file a motion to compel until

and unless either he has properlyserved a discoveryrequest on defendants and they failed to respond,

or a subpoena duces tecum has been properly served on a non-party and that non-party failed to

respond.

Second, this action is proceeding against defendants Terhune, Adams, Castillo, Nguyen, K.

Nguyen, Pak, and Shedler for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants arise from their past

conduct in ignoring his medical need for surgery until 2000, after which time he finally received

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 49 Filed 05/08/07 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

surgery. Plaintiff’s current medical condition and current medical care are not at issue in this action.

Plaintiff may not, in this action, obtain court orders aimed at remedying a situation which is

unrelated to the claims at issue in this action. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th

Cir. 2006). 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel production of his medical records to the

doctors who are currently treating plaintiff, filed March 7, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 49 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2