(PC)Thomas v. Doe

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01319
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST THOMAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01319-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE 13 v. (Doc. No. 10) 14 JANE DOE,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined within the California Department of Corrections and 18 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On 19 January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9, “FAC”) in response to 20 the Court’ November 8, 2024 Screening Order. The Court has not yet screened the FAC. Plaintiff 21 accompanied his FAC with a Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 10). Citing to CDCR regulations, 22 Plaintiff requests the Court to direct CDCR to provide him access to certain surveillance video and 23 body camera footage from October 27, 2023 through October 30, 2023. (Id. at 4). 24 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between parties and non-parties in 25 establishing available discovery devices and remedies. Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada 26 Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Plaintiff directs the Court to CDCR 27 regulations, cases in federal courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 Generally, when a party fails to comply with a proper discovery request, the non-offending party 1 | moves under Rule 37 for a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1). Alternatively, Federal 2 | Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoenas are used to obtain documents or testimony from non-parties. 3 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Because Plaintiff's seeks an order compelling disclosure of CDCR video 4 | footage, which would be in the possession or under the control of a party if this case were to 5 | proceed, the Court construes the pleading as motion to compel discovery. As noted, the Court has 6 | not yet screened Plaintiff's FAC. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court typically does not 7 | begin the discovery process until the operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants 8 | have been served, and those defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, 9 | 2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2022). Because no party has yet been served much less 10 | been made subject to a discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff's Motion is premature. To the 11 | extent Plaintiff wishes CDCR to preserve the video footage, he should make such a request to 12 | CDCR, as appropriate. 13 According, it is ORDERED: 14 Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED as premature. 15 16 Dated: _ January 16, 2025 law ZA. foareh Zackte 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28