(PC) Spence v. Stambaugh ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD SPENCE, No. 2:14-cv-1170 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STAMBAUGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s “request” filed September 26, 2019 is construed in part as a motion for 18 discovery. Plaintiff states in pertinent part that he requires a duplicate video of his booking by 19 Sacramento officials, which defendants previously produced to plaintiff in discovery.1 As stated 20 in the April 18, 2019 declaration of defense counsel Megan E. Nevin, “The incident involving 21 Plaintiff was . . . taped by the surveillance cameras in the booking area of the jail. This footage 22 has been produced to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 78-1 at 2, ¶ 6. Plaintiff now explains that the video he 23 previously obtained was lost by officials of the California Department of Corrections and 24 Rehabilitation when plaintiff was temporarily transferred among institutions to attend a settlement 25 conference in this case which was abruptly cancelled. 26 //// 27 1 There is no judicial recourse for plaintiff’s pursuit of the loss of his personal items. See 28 Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's request filed September 26, 2019, ECF No. 114, construed in pertinent part 3 || as amotion for duplicate discovery, is granted. 4 2. Defense counsel shall, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order: 5 || (a) provide plaintiff with a duplicate copy of his relevant booking video, and (b) file and serve a 6 || statement so informing the court. 7 || DATED: October 28, 2019 ~ 8 Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28