Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-24/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

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

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION CONCERNING SERVICE OF 

SUBPOENAS AND IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

(ECF No. 128.)

I. BACKGROUND

Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on December 26, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with 

the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendants 

Lieutenant C. Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos, on Plaintiff’s claim for 

retaliation. (ECF No. 16.) The events in the complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State 

Prison (KVSP) when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This case is in the discovery phase. 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 169 Filed 10/25/16 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

On June 3, 2016, the Court issued an order authorizing the issuance of two subpoenas

on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF No. 113.) For one of the subpoenas, the Court authorized “the 

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing Christian Pfeiffer, Warden of K.V.S.P., to 

produce those documents which are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order to the Court for in 

camera review.” (ECF No. 113 at 6 ¶3.) Attachment 2 commanded Warden Pfeiffer to 

“[p]roduce any and all records, reports, and recorded interviews of investigations conducted by 

the CDCR concerning Plaintiff’s allegations of staff misconduct of Correctional Officers 

Patrick Gallagher and Ramon R. Romero with respect to the June 8, 2010, assault on Plaintiff.” 

(Attachment 2 to ECF No. 107.) The two subpoenas were issued, and on June 27, 2016, the 

Court directed personal service by the Marshal. (ECF No. 126.)

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion regarding service of subpoenas and the 

Court’s in camera review. (ECF No. 128.) Defendants have not filed an opposition. 

Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

In his motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to “make sure and verify that the KVSP 

Warden Christian Pfeiffer did in fact provide to the Court all the records that were ordered by 

the Court in ECF 107 & 113” during in camera review. (ECF No. 128 at 1.) Plaintiff also 

requests the Court to verify that “every record listed in [Plaintiff’s motion to compel] and the 

records and reports that were required to be filed and created by CDCR pursuant to their policy 

and procedure and state law” were provided. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also requests an evidentiary 

hearing, if all of the records are not provided. Plaintiff also requests the Court to determine if 

the CDCR’s investigations were conducted in compliance with CDCR policy and state law, and 

to consider Defendants’ motives. Plaintiff has submitted fifty-six pages of exhibits to the Court

to assist the Court in determining which documents must be provided in response to the 

subpoena. (Exhibits to ECF No. 128.)

Discussion

To date, the Court has not received any documents for in camera review. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Further, Plaintiff is advised that if documents are submitted for 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 169 Filed 10/25/16 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

in camera review, the Court shall not conduct investigations on Plaintiff’s behalf. As stated in 

the June 3, 2016 order, the Court requested in camera review for the purpose of “review[ing]

the records for any relevant evidence.” (ECF No. 107 at 4:3.)

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s motion concerning service 

of subpoenas and in camera review, filed on August 11, 2016, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 169 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 3