Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01319-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jane Doe
Defendant
Ernest Thomas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01319-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE 

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined within the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On 

January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9, “FAC”) in response to 

the Court’ November 8, 2024 Screening Order. The Court has not yet screened the FAC. Plaintiff 

accompanied his FAC with a Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 10). Citing to CDCR regulations, 

Plaintiff requests the Court to direct CDCR to provide him access to certain surveillance video and 

body camera footage from October 27, 2023 through October 30, 2023. (Id. at 4). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between parties and non-parties in 

establishing available discovery devices and remedies. Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada 

Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Plaintiff directs the Court to CDCR 

regulations, cases in federal courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Generally, when a party fails to comply with a proper discovery request, the non-offending party 

Case 1:24-cv-01319-HBK Document 11 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

2

moves under Rule 37 for a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1). Alternatively, Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoenas are used to obtain documents or testimony from non-parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Because Plaintiff’s seeks an order compelling disclosure of CDCR video 

footage, which would be in the possession or under the control of a party if this case were to 

proceed, the Court construes the pleading as motion to compel discovery. As noted, the Court has 

not yet screened Plaintiff’s FAC. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court typically does not 

begin the discovery process until the operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants 

have been served, and those defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, 

2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2022). Because no party has yet been served much less 

been made subject to a discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff’s Motion is premature. To the 

extent Plaintiff wishes CDCR to preserve the video footage, he should make such a request to 

CDCR, as appropriate. 

According, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED as premature.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01319-HBK Document 11 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 2