Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605-26/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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1605 GEB DAD P

vs.

S. COOK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. He has

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges violation of his constitutional

rights while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. Before the court are several

documents filed by plaintiff.

First, plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Notice of Intentional Obstruction By

Agents And Co-Union Members of Defendants Toward Plaintiff’s Efforts In Moving This Case

Forward; and, Request For Counsel.” Plaintiff contends that the law library at Corcoran State

Prison contains outdated materials, has not provide plaintiff with requested cases and law books,

and that library staff fails to provide assistance and refuses to photocopy his exhibits. Plaintiff

requests that the court “acknowledge” that plaintiff is unable to respond to defendant’s request

for production of documents and to appoint counsel. Plaintiff may request an extension of time

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 97 Filed 01/04/07 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

to respond to discovery requests; however, he is required to respond to the discovery requests. 

Plaintiff should inform defendants’ counsel about the problems he is having in obtaining

photocopies and he should provide a brief description of the documents that he is attempting to

produce. As for plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, the request will be denied for

the reasons set forth in the court’s November 14, 2006 order.

Second, plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Request For Court Order For

California Inspector General’s Office To Release Documents.” Plaintiff contends that “external

investigations were conducted at High Desert State Prison (where my claims are primarily

based); and that relevant evidence was discovered during those investigations.” (Pl’s Req. for

Court Order, filed 12/26/06, at 1.) The Inspector General’s Office sent plaintiff a letter which

stated as follows:

This is in response to your Public Records Act request for

information on persons who conducted investigations of High

Desert State Prison, or any of its employees, between January 2000

through October 2004.

You have requested the names, titles, addresses and phone

numbers of persons who were investigated, and the reason for the

investigations. Assuming you are referring to sworn staff, the

information you seek is protected under Penal Code section 832.7. 

Investigations of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

can be requested by either the Secretary of the Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, a Member of the Legislature or the

Inspector General may initiate an investigation on his own accord. 

Those investigations, including the reason for the investigation, are

confidential pursuant to Penal Code section 6131(b).

Therefore, we are unable to provide you a copy without a court

order.

(Pl.’s Req. for Court Order, filed 12/26/06, Attach.) 

Plaintiff’s request for a court order in this regard will be denied. Plaintiff has not

explained what evidence he believes the Inspector General’s Office has obtained and how that

evidence relates to any specific claim presented in this action. In addition, plaintiff’s request for

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 97 Filed 01/04/07 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

information from the Inspector General’s Office appears to have been an exploratory inquiry. 

The court will not issue an order for such vague and overly broad discovery.

Third, plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants

Request For Production of Documents (Set No. One).” Plaintiff is informed that discovery

responses should not be filed with the court until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a

response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s document shall be placed in the file and disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 document styled, “Notice of Intentional

Obstruction By Agents And Co-Union Members of Defendants Toward Plaintiff’s Efforts In

Moving This Case Forward; and, Request For Counsel” are denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 request for court order for release of records is

denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 response to defendants’ request for production

of documents shall be placed in the file and disregarded. 

DATED: January 3, 2007.

DAD:4

lope1605.ord 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 97 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 3