Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006-6/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

 Defendants were not required to release HDSP Operational Procedures 101 and 104. (See 1

June 8, 2005 Order at 2.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER OATEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2006 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to conditions that violated his

constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments during an institutional

lockdown on December 31, 2002. By order filed June 8, 2005, defendants were directed to

submit, for in camera review, certain documents responsive to plaintiff’s requests for documents

Nos. 7 and 8. Defendants have now submitted their documents.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to the following two document requests:

Production of Documents Request No. 7: “All initial and

supplemental investigation reports created in connection to the

possible threat against staff discovered on or about December 30,

2002.”1

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 79 Filed 09/22/05 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

2

Production of Documents Request No. 8: “The IA Investigation re: 

Baillie, Log No #N-HDSP-018-03.”

(Pl.’s April 19, 2005 Motion.) 

The court reviewed the documents submitted in camera and directed the Deputy

Attorney General to provide the court with a set of documents that had proposed redactions to

address appropriate security concerns. On September 13 and 19, 2005, counsel for defendants

submitted proposed redacted copies. The court has reviewed the proposed redacted documents

and finds that plaintiff is entitled to receive copies of the proposed redacted material provided. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 19, 2005 motion to

compel further responses to Requests Nos. 7 and 8 is granted in part. Within five days from the

date of this order, the Deputy Attorney General shall provide to plaintiff those proposed redacted

documents submitted to the court on September 13 and 19, 2005. In all other respects, plaintiff’s

motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 7 and 8 is denied.

DATED: September 21, 2005.

/001

oate2006.mtc2 

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 79 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2