Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garrison S. Johnson v. Tecum John Dovey

February 14, 2011

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TECUM JOHN DOVEY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENA DUCES (DOCS. 69, 71, 87, 95, 97, 103) SUBPOENAS TO ISSUE AFTER TWENTY (20) DAYS

Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, G. Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions requesting subpoenas duces tecum, filed June 16, 2010, June 17, 2010, August 20, 2010, September 17, 2010, September 20, 2010, and November 15, 2010. Docs. 69, 71, 87, 95, 97, and 103.

II. June 16, 2010 and June 17, 2010 Motions

Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshal issue a subpoena upon Warden F. Gonzalez, warden of California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), where the alleged incident occurred. Docs. 69, 71. Plaintiff requests a subpoena for the production of all logs, documents, and electronically stored information in the Warden's possession and control relating to the dates and time Plaintiff was provided showers from March 17, 2007 through March 30, 2007. Plaintiff also requests production of all CDCR policies, rules, regulations, documents, and electronically stored information in the Warden's possession and control that requires documenting whether the inmate showered or refused to shower.

The Court finds this request reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff contends that he was denied a shower to decontaminate after being pepper sprayed. This order will constitute the notice required to the parties that a subpoena will issue.

Plaintiff also requests CDCR policy regarding whether spouses can work together in the same building unit. As stated in another order, the Court does not find this to be related at all to the action, and such related requests are denied.

II. August 20, 2010 Motion

Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshal issue a subpoena upon Mathew Cate, Secretary of the CDCR, or Warden Gonzalez for various documents. The Court will address the merits of each request. Plaintiff's requests can be addressed by Warden Gonzalez, as he would have more direct control over the requested documents than Secretary Cate.

1. Any and all logs, documents, and electronically stored information in your possession and control that relates to all cell searches at [CCI] that reveal the dates [Plaintiff's] cell was searched when he was housed at Facility IVA Housing Unit 4 from January 1, 2006 through March 17, 2007.

Plaintiff contends that he was subjected to excessive force and retaliation when correctional officers searched his cell, read his legal documents, and determined that he is the inmate who sued the CDCR for racial segregation in its housing practice for two-man cells. The Court finds this request reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action, and will issue a subpoena subsequently.

2. Any and all logs, documents, and electronically stored information in your possession and control that relates to a mass cell search conducted in [CCI] on March 11, 2007 at the IVA Facility.*fn1

Plaintiff contends that the mass cell searches on March 11, 2007 did not search all the cells in Unit 4. Plaintiff contends these documents would support Plaintiff's claims that he was retaliated against. This request is too broad in scope, as it is unclear why information regarding the mass cell search at the entire IVA Facility would pertain to Plaintiff's action regarding retaliation. Additionally, Plaintiff makes a more specific request below. The Court does not find this request reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action, and will not issue a subpoena.

3. Any and all logs, documents and electronically stored information in your possession and control that reveals Defendant Dunnahoe was assigned in CCI to search [Plaintiff's] cell on March 11, 2007 at Facility IVA, Housing Unit 4, Cell #111.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Dunnahoe was involved in searching Plaintiff's cell on March 11, 2007 and was again involved in removing Plaintiff from his cell on March 17, 2007. Plaintiff contends that this demonstrates retaliatory actions by defendants. The Court finds this request reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action, and will issue a subpoena subsequently.

4. Any and all logs, documents, and electronically stored information in your possession and control that [pertains to] Facility IVA [being] placed on emergency lockdown and/or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.