Antwone Stokes v. Sgt. Costello

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02413
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWONE STOKES, No. 2:24-cv-2413 CSK P

12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 SGT. COSTELLO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On September 2, 18 2025, plaintiff filed a document with a cover sheet stating, “I enclosed one of many grievances I 19 filed about my mail being tampered with and delayed.” (ECF No. 26.) As discussed below, to 20 the extent plaintiff seeks to compel discovery, his motion is denied, and plaintiff is granted an 21 extension of time to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Sgt. 24 Costello, alleging that on August 13, 2024, at California State Prison, Sacramento, defendant, for 25 no reason, used excessive force by placing plaintiff in tight handcuffs, and then putting plaintiff in 26 a holding cage without benefit of water for six hours despite plaintiff’s multiple requests for 27 water. (ECF No. 1 at 3-5.) 28 1 On March 21, 2025, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting the 2 discovery deadline for July 18, 2025, and the pretrial motions deadline for October 10, 2025. 3 (ECF No. 19 at 5-6.) Motions to compel discovery were due on or before July 18, 2025. 4 Requests for written discovery must have been served no later than 60 days prior to July 18, 2025 5 or by May 19, 2025. (Id. at 5.) 6 Plaintiff was previously informed about how to propound discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 7 19 at 5; 22 at 4.) In the April 24, 2025 order, plaintiff was reminded that the Court’s discovery 8 and scheduling order provided detailed instructions as to propounding discovery, that such 9 requests are not to be filed with the Court, and instructed that “he must first seek this video 10 footage through discovery propounded to defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.” (Id. at 3, 4.) 11 Despite that order, plaintiff filed a motion on May 15, 2025, again seeking various video footage. 12 (ECF No. 23.) On May 27, 2025, plaintiff was reminded that discovery requests must be served 13 on counsel for defendant, and his motion was denied. (ECF No. 24.) 14 On August 20, 2025, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 15 plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims against defendant J. 16 Costello. (ECF No. 25.) On September 2, 2025, plaintiff filed his document concerning mail 17 tampering and discovery. (ECF No. 26.) 18 II. PLAINTIFF’S CURRENT FILING 19 Plaintiff has several lawsuits pending against prison staff, and alleges prison staff 20 retaliated against him and delayed his incoming and outgoing mail. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff spoke 21 with defendant’s counsel about this problem several times. (Id.) After internal affairs and the 22 inspector general came to see plaintiff, he is now receiving mail that is 45 days old. (Id. at 3.) 23 Plaintiff mailed the request for discovery on May 6, 2025. (Id. at 2.) Due to circumstances 24 beyond plaintiff’s control, his request was late, and he would like the court to order defendant’s 25 counsel to produce the discovery he requested in this case. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also states he 26 would like to file a motion to compel discovery to find out if defendants “Cheek,” “Orcullo” and 27 “I. Alverez” have had any complaints filed against them. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff appended a copy of 28 a grievance signed July 24, 2025, alleging his mail was being purposefully delayed. (Id. at 6-7.) 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the request for discovery he mailed on May 6, 2025. 3 Plaintiff’s filing is not a proper motion to compel discovery because it does not set forth the 4 specific discovery requests propounded to defendant Sgt. Costello with a proof of service 5 attesting to service on defendant. In addition, to the extent plaintiff intended his filing to be a 6 motion to compel discovery, such motion is untimely as it was filed after the July 18, 2025 7 discovery deadline. Further, any discovery sought from defendants Cheek, Orcullo and I. Alverez 8 is not applicable to this case, which proceeds against only defendant Sgt. Costello. 9 Because plaintiff did not provide a copy of the discovery, or identify the nature of the 10 discovery he mailed on May 6, 2025, the Court is unable to further evaluate plaintiff’s allegation. 11 Indeed, it is unclear whether the discovery mailed May 6, 2025, was related to this case or to 12 plaintiff’s case against defendants Cheek, Orcullo and I. Alverez. 13 In addition, plaintiff’s filing is insufficient to construe as a request to modify the 14 scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 15 and with the judge’s consent.”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th 16 Cir. 1992). 17 Similarly, plaintiff’s filing, signed on August 10, 2025, does not constitute a request under 18 Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for two reasons. First, plaintiff’s current filing 19 was filed before defendant served his motion on plaintiff on August 20, 2025. Second, plaintiff’s 20 allegations regarding discovery fail to identify any facts he needs but does not have that relate to 21 the exhaustion of administrative remedies. 22 Finally, plaintiff’s mail tampering claims are not related to plaintiff’s excessive force 23 claim against defendant Sgt. Costello. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also George v. Smith, 507 24 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in different 25 suits”). Thus, plaintiff must pursue any mail tampering claims in a separate civil rights action. 26 Therefore, to the extent plaintiff intended his filing to be a motion to compel discovery, 27 his motion is denied. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted an extension of time to 28 oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs filing, construed as a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 26), is denied; 3 and 4 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an opposition to 5 defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 6 7 || Dated: September 11, 2025 4 CAn Spo \L CHI 500 KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 |] tstok2413.mtc.cot 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28