Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00103/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00103-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William H. Chism, III, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

J. Ward, Chief Deputy Warden; Ken

Clark, Warden; S. Sherman, Associate

Warden; S. Smith, Correctional

Lieutenant; Ricky Gomez, Correctional

Counselor II; and C. Palmer,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:08-cv-00103-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff William Chism, an inmate at a California state prison, filed a complaint

against Defendants on January 22, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly

allowed him to be beaten by another inmate and that he sustained serious injuries as a result

of the assault. The complaint asserts a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

state law claims for negligence and infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. #1.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the state law claims on the ground that

Plaintiff failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. Dkt. #23. Plaintiff does not

oppose the motion. Dkt. #25. The Court therefore will dismiss the state law claims (counts

two through five). Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 44-58.

Plaintiff has filed a Pitchess motion requesting complaints made by other inmates

and related information contained in Defendants’ personnel files. Dkt. #20; see Dkt. ##21,

22 26. In Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P.2d 897 (Cal. 1974), the California Supreme

Case 1:08-cv-00103-DGC Document 27 Filed 02/26/10 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 -

Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a law enforcement officer’s personnel

records if the defendant can show the records are necessary character evidence. A Pitchess

motion “may be appropriate only if brought by a defendant in the context of a state criminal

trial, not by a plaintiff in a federal civil rights action.” Turner v. Spence, No. CIV S 07-0022

GGH P, 2008 WL 927709, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s

Pitchess motion will be “denied because it is misplaced in this federal civil action.” Williams

v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC, 2009 WL 1220311, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 4,

2009).

Moreover, the motion is supported by nothing more than “information and belief.”

See Dkt. ##21 at 2, 22 ¶¶ 2-5. Plaintiff has established no factual link between the

allegations of the complaint and the records he seeks. Review of Defendants’ personnel

records would constitute an impermissible fishing expedition.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Dkt. #23) is granted.

2. The four state law claims asserted in the complaint (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 44-58) are

dismissed.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave request for production of documents (Dkt. #20) is

denied.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-00103-DGC Document 27 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2