Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-67/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CLINTON, No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for production of

unredacted confidential documents. The confidential documents were filed with the court under

seal for the court to review in camera. 

The court’s initial review of the documents is completed. The court is inclined at

this time to grant plaintiff’s request for unredacted copies of these documents, with the exception

of the prisoner identification numbers of the prisoners, other than plaintiff, named in the

documents, and the name of the yard in which the other inmate was released as identified in

Sergeant Dixon’s report. The only argument supporting the redaction of information is

institutional safety and security. The court does not find the information which has been redacted

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 451 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 3
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

2

in the documents is likely to have any impact on the safety and security of the institution. 

Specifically, the redacted information is similar to, if not essentially duplicative of, unredacted

information contained in other parts of the documents. Thus, conclusory statements relating to

institutional safety and security is unpersuasive. No specific information has been provided to

the court as to how the redacted information places the safety and security of the institution at

risk. 

However, prior to ordering the unredacted documents turned over to plaintiff, the

court finds it appropriate to provide the parties an opportunity to be heard on the matter if there

continues to be an objection to providing plaintiff unredacted copies of these documents. If the

defense wishes to be heard on any additional reasons why plaintiff should not be provided an

unredacted copy of these documents, a request for a telephonic appearance on the court’s January

19, 2010, law and motion calendar, at 11:00 a.m., may be filed and served on or before January

7, 2010. If such a hearing is requested, both parties may appear telephonically and arrangements

will be made for a conference call. If no request for hearing is filed within the time frame

provided herein, the court will issue an order for plaintiff to be provided an unredacted copy of

each of the three confidential reports submitted to the court for review. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court is inclined to require an unredacted copy of the confidential

reports, submitted to the court for an in camera review, be provided to plaintiff;

2. If the defense has additional reasons, specific to the information contained

in these reports, why an unredacted copy should not be provided to plaintiff, they may file a

notice to be heard on or before January 7, 2010;

3. If the defense files a notice to be heard, a telephonic hearing will be held

on January 19, 2010, at 11:00 a.m.; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 451 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. If no notice to be heard is timely filed, the court will issue an order for

Plaintiff to be provided an unredacted copy of each confidential report provided to the court for

review.

DATED: January 3, 2011

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 451 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3