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. A. Dunnahoe

April 24, 2012

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. DUNNAHOE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CITATION, SANCTIONS, AND DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (DOC. 152) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT (DOC. 164)

ORDER DIRECTING CDCR TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 155)

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 on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions of confinement, retaliation, and state law claims.

On March 9, 2011, the Court directed the United States Marshal to serve subpoenas duces tecum on CDCR and Matthew Stainer, acting warden of California Correctional Institution, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. CDCR and Mr. Stainer were to respond to the subpoenas. Doc. 118. On November 7, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel against non-party CDCR to produce the documents. Doc. 146. On December 12, 2011, the Court granted CDCR's motion for a protective order in part. Doc. 149.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against non-party CDCR, filed January 6, 2012. Doc. 152. CDCR filed a response to Plaintiff's motion on March 27, 2012. Doc. 162. On April 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed his reply. Doc. 166. Also pending is Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against CDCR, filed January 20, 2012. Doc. 155. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).*fn1

I. Motion For Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanction against CDCR for alleged failure to obey the Court's subpoena. Plaintiff contends that CDCR failed to produce responsive documents as listed in the Court's December 12, 2011 Order. Plaintiff seeks as sanction production of all documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum, or in the alternative enter default judgment against Defendants.*fn2 Plaintiff also seeks an award of costs.

CDCR contends that it has responded to the subpoena duces tecum in full. CDCR lists its responses to each subpoena request.*fn3 The Court notes that CDCR did not have to respond to some requested documents listed in the subpoena, pursuant to the Court's December 11, 2011 Order. They are included for the sake of clarity.

Request A1: "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."

CDCR contends that Plaintiff was provided with documentation regarding California Correctional Institution's policy regarding shower procedures. CDCR Resp. 3:23-4:5. CDCR contends that the only information as to whether an inmate has showered on a particular date is kept only in the inmate's central file, to which Plaintiff has access. Id.

Request A2: "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." CDCR contends that Plaintiff was provided with documentation regarding California Correctional Institution's ("CCI") policy regarding shower procedures. CDCR Resp. 4:11-20. Request A3: "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."

The Court had found this request unduly burdensome and would not require CDCR to produce it. CDCR Resp. 4:26-5:3. CDCR contends that it responded to Document A3 by production of a March 11, 2007 record in response to Request A4. Id.

Request A4: "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."

CDCR contends that a sign-in/sign-out sheet dated March 11, 2007 and a cell search receipt dated March 11, 2007 were both produced ...


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.