Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C 05-03759 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS

TO PERMIT PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN

EVIDENCE FROM INMATES

On October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Court to Compel Defendants to Permit

Plaintiff to Obtain Evidence from Inmates. On November 8, 2007, Defendants filed an opposition

and on December 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a reply. This matter is appropriate for decision without oral

argument. 

In his supplemental complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care at

Pelican Bay State Prison and brings a federal claim against Defendants based on violation of his

Eighth Amendment rights and state law claims for medical negligence and breach of contract. In

this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting him to obtain evidence from inmates Clement and

Beasley, who allegedly had similar experiences with allegedly inadequate medical care at Pelican

Bay. Plaintiff claims to need this information in order to oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s requests to correspond with these inmates will been

denied based on the prison’s rule that approvals for correspondence related to a lawsuit are for one

time only, and that Plaintiff has previously corresponded with these two inmates. See Barlow Decl.

¶ 10. 

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 191 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff states generally that these inmates are “similarly situated and thus supportive of his

claims presented in his supplemental complaint” (Mot. at 1), but this is not sufficient to show that

Clement or Beasley have additional information relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for purposes of

discovery. Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint seeks to redress his own personal injury, so allegedly

inadequate medical care received by other inmates is not relevant to his claims. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Because the Court denies the motion on

relevancy grounds, it need not reach the issue of whether the prison’s apparent policy of limiting

correspondence with other inmates pertaining to litigation to a single time only could run afoul of a

litigants’ rights under different circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007

_______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 191 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2