(PC) Spence v. Stambaugh

Opinion

GERALD SPENCE, No. 2:14-cv-1170 WBS AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER STAMBAUGH, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff’s “request” filed September 26, 2019 is construed in part as a motion for discovery. Plaintiff states in pertinent part that he requires a duplicate video of his booking by Sacramento officials, which defendants previously produced to plaintiff in discovery.1 As stated in the April 18, 2019 declaration of defense counsel Megan E. Nevin, “The incident involving Plaintiff was . . . taped by the surveillance cameras in the booking area of the jail. This footage has been produced to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 78-1 at 2, ¶ 6. Plaintiff now explains that the video he previously obtained was lost by officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation when plaintiff was temporarily transferred among institutions to attend a settlement conference in this case which was abruptly cancelled. //// 1 There is no judicial recourse for plaintiff’s pursuit of the loss of his personal items. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request filed September 26, 2019, ECF No. 114, construed in pertinent part as amotion for duplicate discovery, is granted. 2. Defense counsel shall, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order: (a) provide plaintiff with a duplicate copy of his relevant booking video, and (b) file and serve a statement so informing the court. DATED: October 28, 2019 ~ Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE