Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280-7/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

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs IV (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking an order requiring defendants to preserve videotaped interviews relevant to the

claims in this action.

“[A]s soon as a potential claim is identified, a litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence

which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” Ameripride Svcs., Inc. v.

Valley Indus. Serv., Inc., No. CIV-S-00-113 LKK/JFM, 2006 WL 2308442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug.

9, 2006) (citing National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 566-67 (N.D.

Cal. 1987)). The court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper

conduct, Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447

U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001), which includes spoliation

of evidence, World Courier v. Barone, No. C 06-3072 TEH, 2007 WL 1119196, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

Apr. 16, 2007); Ameripride Svcs., Inc., 2006 WL 2308442, at *4. A motion to preserve evidence

requires the court to consider “1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 07/05/07 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

 The United States Marshal was directed to initiate service of process on May 21, 2007. To date, one 1

defendant has filed a waiver of service, and is required to file a response to the complaint within sixty days from May

31, 2007. (Docs. 15, 18.)

2

maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of an order directing

preservation of the evidence; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the

preservation of evidence absent an order directing preservation; and 3) the capability of an

individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the

evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens

created by ordering the evidence preservation.” Daniel v. Coleman Co., Inc., No. 06-5706 KLS,

2007 WL 1463102, *2 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2007). 

At this juncture, defendants have not yet made an appearance in this action and the court does

not have jurisdiction to issue any orders directed at them. Once defendants have made an 1

appearance in this action, by filing either an answer or a motion responsive to plaintiff’s complaint,

plaintiff may renew his motion, taking care to make the requisite showing set forth in the preceding

paragraph. Until defendants have made an appearance, plaintiff’s motion is premature and is

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 5, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2