Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06658-REC-SMS-P

INFORMATIONAL ORDER ADDRESSING

SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS FOR IN

CAMERA REVIEW ON JULY 29, 2005

ORDER NOTIFYING COUNSEL THAT IF HE

WISHES THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING

TO DEFENDANT SNOW RETURNED TO

HIM, HE MUST SO NOTIFY THE COURT

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff William Garcia (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is currently proceeding

against defendant Vijaya Katukota on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim.

On June 28, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and directed defendants

Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez’s counsel to provide responses to four document requests by

July 29, 2005. On July 29, 2005, pursuant to the order, counsel provided the court with a response

to request number two for in camera review. Subsequently, on March 15, 2006, the court granted

defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, Ramirez, and Bradish’s motions for summary adjudication on

plaintiff’s claims against them.

Request number two sought any documents relating to the suspension or revocation of

privileges or licenses of defendants Snow, Smith, Nguyen, and Ramirez. The documents provided

to the court for in camera review pertained to defendant Snow and consisted of an employment

application that contains some information possibly pertinent to plaintiff’s request and a letter

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 144 Filed 05/08/06 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

1

 The production of defendant Snow’s employment application and/or the letter pertaining to defendant’s

leave of absence to plaintiff would not have had effected the Findings and Recommendations or Order granting

defendant Snow’s motion for summary adjudication. 

2

regarding defendant Snow’s leave of absence from the California Substance Abuse and Treatment

Facility. Because defendant Snow has been granted summary adjudication as to plaintiff’s claim

against her, plaintiff’s request is moot.1 

If counsel would like the documents returned him, he shall so notify the court within fifteen

(15) days. If the court does not hear from counsel in writing within fifteen days, the court shall

dispose of document copies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 144 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2