Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01407-14/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA MCMASTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH GA 154 FORM

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 78 and 82)

Plaintiff Dana McMaster, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 6, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 3, 2013, against Defendants 

Carlson, Garcia, Sedwick, Espitia, and Pease for failing to protect him, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and against Defendant Carlson for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. 

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred between March 7, 2009, and April 

20, 2009, at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California.

The discovery phase of this litigation is closed as between Plaintiff and Defendants 

Carlson, Garcia, Sedwick, and Espitia, with the exception of the dispute regarding the existence of 

the GA 154 form for March 18, 2009. (Doc. 78, Order, 5:9-21; Doc. 97, F&R, 22:22-23:5.) The 

Court accepted Defendants’ representation that the form no longer existed because it was 

discarded after one year, but it required Defendants to serve Plaintiff with the retention schedule. 

Case 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO Document 104 Filed 01/07/15 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

(Doc. 78.) Defendants complied with the order and filed a notice regarding service of the 

retention schedule on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 82.)

A review of the retention schedule evidences retention of the relevant record in the office 

for only one year but maintenance of the official record in DDPS. (Doc. 82-1, Notice, p. 1.) The 

GA 154 form is discoverable, and based on the substance Defendants’ supplemental discovery 

response, the Court concluded in error that the GA 154 form no longer existed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b). The sufficiency of Defendants’ response having been undercut by the retention schedule, 

they shall produce the document.

1

 

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants 

shall serve Plaintiff with the GA 154 form for March 18, 2009, Pleasant Valley State Prison, 

Charlie Facility, Building 5, cell number 214.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Defendants are now represented by different counsel than they were during the relevant discovery period and the 

Court does not wish to unnecessarily belabor the point, but it bears repeating that parties are required to engage in 

discovery in good faith and the failure to do so may provide grounds for sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Asea, 

Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981).

Case 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO Document 104 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2