Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790-18/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

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“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 June 27, 2013, the Court issued an order that required defense counsel to arrange for 

Plaintiff to view the non-confidential portions of his c-file and obtain copies of those documents, 

including his CDCR 114-A and 114-A1 entries (or documents) relevant to this action within twentyone (21) days. (ECF No. 68, pp. 3-4.) The Court also indicated that Plaintiff may contact defense 

counsel to arrange for viewing of his videotaped extraction and, if necessary, renew his request to 

compel such viewing. (ECF No. 68, p. 11.) 

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel review and copies of his c-file as ordered 

by the Court. Plaintiff contends that he was not allowed to review any documents in the file. 

Although he was able to itemize documents for copying, he was denied copies due to a lack of funds. 

(ECF No. 75.) On March 17, 2014, the Court directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s 

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. LATRAILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01790-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLY C-FILE

(ECF No. 75)

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 84 Filed 03/25/14 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

motion to compel. (ECF No. 81.) On March 24, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 83.) The Court does not find a reply necessary and the motion to compel 

is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Defendants have submitted evidence of the following:

On June 28, 2013, the day after the Court’s discovery order, the paralegal assigned to this 

matter sent an e-mail to the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Corcoran regarding the 

Court’s order and requesting that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to review his central file, including 

the relevant 114As and A1s, and view the videotape of his extraction. (ECF No. 83, p. 7, Ex. A.) 

On July 5, 2013, the Litigation Coordinator advised that Plaintiff had been allowed to view the 

extraction video and that Plaintiff’s review of his central file would take place before July 18, 2013. 

(ECF No. 83, p. 9, Ex. B.) 

On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff reviewed his central file, supervised by his Correctional Counselor, 

D. McGuire. (ECF No. 83, p. 11, Ex. C.) Although Plaintiff’s request for copies was originally 

denied, the denial was rescinded and Counselor McGuire was awaiting further instructions regarding 

the copies. (ECF No. 83, p. 2.) 

Defendants conclude that Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to view his central file, 

obtain copies of the 114A and A1 material to the matters at issue and to review the extraction video. 

(ECF No. 83, P. 3.) Defendants also state that they provided documents to Plaintiff. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have complied with the Court’s June 

27, 2013 order. The Court therefore declines Plaintiff’s request for a complete copy of his central file, 

and his motion to compel, filed on August 1, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 84 Filed 03/25/14 Page 2 of 2