Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

THOMAS GOOLSBY, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00119-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PRESERVE 

RECORDS

(Doc. 37.)

I. BACKGROUND

Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 25, 2013, 

Plaintiff and four co-plaintiffs filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) The 

court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on May 2, 

2013, severing the plaintiffs‟ claims, directing the Clerk to open new cases for each of the four 

co-plaintiffs, and requiring each plaintiff to file an amended complaint in his own case. (Doc. 

9.) Thomas Goolsby is now the sole plaintiff in this case. 

On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 4.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 38 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31.) The 

court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on May 21, 2014, requiring 

Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the court of his willingness to 

proceed with the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 33.) 

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 34.) On March 

24, 2015, the court issued an order permitting Plaintiff to proceed with the cognizable claims 

found by the court in the Second Amended Complaint, and sending Plaintiff service documents 

to complete and return to the court within thirty days. (Doc. 36.)

On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendants to preserve 

records. (Doc. 37.)

II. SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

“Spoliation of evidence is the „destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the 

failure to preserve property for another‟s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation.‟” 

Kearney v. Foldy & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638, 649 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hernandez v. 

Garcetti, 68 Cal.App.4th 675, 680, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 443 (1998)). “Litigants owe an 

uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or reasonably should know will be relevant 

evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET 

AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted). Further, the destruction of evidence is sanctionable conduct. 

Plaintiff requests the court to compel the defendants to preserve all evidence relevant to 

this action. Plaintiff expresses concern that the Second Amended Complaint, filed on June 3, 

2014, has not yet been served on defendants.1 

Given the duty to preserve evidence, Plaintiff‟s motion shall be denied. The Court 

declines to presume that the defendants will destroy evidence. Moreover, because none of the 

 

1

Plaintiff is advised to complete and return the service documents as soon as possible to initiate 

service of process.

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 38 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

defendants have appeared in this action, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order 

compelling them to act. Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 

Cir. 1985). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s motion to compel the 

defendants to preserve records, filed on March 26, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 38 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 3