Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 256

On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to provide a 

statement “confirming that a copy of each and every photograph taken” of plaintiff James Johnson 

pursuant to his arrest on January 30, 2012 was provided to the San Francisco City Attorney’s 

Office. Dkt. No. 271. The Court further required that a deputy city attorney “should then confirm 

that all of those photos were produced to Johnson.” Id. 

In response, Freya Horne, Legal Counsel for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, declared 

that when her office “requested photos to be provided in response to this request, we were able to 

locate three mug shot photos, and the photo on the housing card.” Dkt. No. 275 ¶ 3. She states 

she has “no reason to believe that any photos were destroyed or erased.” Id. As far as she is 

aware, “the Department has no way of changing or cropping photos taken during intake, and no 

one change[d] or altered the photos in any way before providing them to me for production to the 

City Attorney’s office.” Id. ¶ 4. She reports that a supervisor at the County Jail checked the 

system in March 2016 and did not find any additional photos of Johnson. Id. ¶ 4. 

Deputy City Attorney Margaret Baumgartner confirms that all four photos found by the 

Sheriff’s Department were provided to Plaintiff “without modification.” Dkt. No. 274. 

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 278 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

These representations are sufficient to close the matter. Plaintiff’s request for 

reconsideration of Judge Vadas’ February 26, 2016 discovery order is denied. See Dkt. No. 256. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 278 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2