Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01479-14/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

BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07-cv-1479 MCE JFM P

vs.

ANA SOARES, M.D., et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint. On

August 12, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to compel a response to request for production of

documents number 8. Plaintiff seeks copies of all reports written by defendants J. Rayfield, J.

Halloway, L. Terry, and D. Bennett, on the use of force February 14, 2007 against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks $8.14 as his reasonable expenses in making the motion.

Defendants contend that they have provided all documents in their possession that

are responsive to this request, and that the only Special Incident Report prepared about the

February 14, 2007 use of force has previously been provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that

defendants should have stated that in their discovery response rather than waiting until the

motion to compel had been filed and, further, that CDCR regulations require each person who

used force to complete a Special Incident Report. Plaintiff asks the court to impose

consequences for their failure to do so.

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 67 Filed 09/19/08 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

2

Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents they do not have. If

plaintiff believes defendants failed to adhere to regulations concerning the preparation of reports,

he may seek to introduce said evidence at trial. Because plaintiff has been provided with copies

of all documents in defendants’ possession, the motion to compel and for expenses will be

denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August

12, 2008 motion to compel and for expenses [docket no. 61] is denied.

DATED: September 19, 2008. 

001; stol1479.mtc

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 67 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 2