(PC) Evans v. Diaz ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARKEEM EVANS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00291-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO 13 v. PROVIDE REQUESTED DOCUMENT 14 DIAZ, et al., (ECF No. 77) 15 Defendants. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Due: October 3, 2024 16 17 Plaintiff David Arkeem Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner and current county 18 jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 19 proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against: (1) Defendants E. Diaz and Ramirez for 20 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for spraying Plaintiff with OC spray; 21 (2) Defendants E. Diaz and Ramirez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for 22 applying excessively tight ankle restraints and dragging Plaintiff by the chain of the shackles into 23 the hallway; (3) Defendants Martins, E. Diaz, Ramirez, and Marin for excessive force in violation 24 of the Eighth Amendment for beating Plaintiff with batons in the hallway; (4) Defendants A. 25 Aguilar and E. Figueroa for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 26 (5) Defendant Bradford for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 27 Eighth Amendment for refusing to admit Plaintiff to a suicide crisis bed after Plaintiff swallowed 28 two razor blades with the intent of killing himself; and (6) Defendants Stanley, Arrozola, and 1 Aguilar for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2 On May 2, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: 3 (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of excessive force against Defendants Diaz, Ramirez, 4 Martins, and Marin, and claim of failure to intervene against Defendants Aguilar and Figueroa, 5 are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (2) Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate 6 indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Bradford and claim of unconstitutional 7 conditions of confinement against Defendants Stanley, Arrozola, and Aguilar are not supported 8 by the undisputed facts. (ECF No. 63.) Following Plaintiff’s most recent notice of change of 9 address indicating his recent re-incarceration in county jail, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion 10 for summary judgment is currently due on or before October 3, 2024. (ECF No. 75.) 11 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for Court to order Defendant to provide 12 requested document, filed August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 77.) Counsel for Defendants filed a 13 declaration in response on September 6, 2024. (ECF No. 78.) Although Plaintiff has not yet had 14 the opportunity to file a reply brief, the Court finds a further response unnecessary. The motion is 15 deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 16 In his motion, Plaintiff requests a court order directing Defendants to send him a copy of 17 all exhibits Plaintiff provided during his January 10, 2024 deposition, as well as a full copy of the 18 deposition transcript. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff also separately wrote to defense counsel requesting 19 these documents. Plaintiff states that he is requesting these documents so that he can properly 20 respond to the motion for summary judgment, as his copies were stolen when his car was towed. 21 The emailed copy of the deposition Plaintiff previously received was encrypted. (Id.) 22 In response, Defendants filed a declaration of counsel, in which defense counsel confirms 23 that he received Plaintiff’s request, and on September 6, 2024 provided Plaintiff with courtesy 24 copies of all deposition exhibits. (ECF No. 78.) Counsel advised Plaintiff, however, that he 25 could not provide a copy of the deposition transcript if Plaintiff did not purchase one. (Id.) 26 As Defendants have already sent courtesy copies of all deposition exhibits, this portion of 27 Plaintiff’s request is denied, as moot. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to provide a copy of the complete deposition transcript 2 is also denied. As Defendants noted, pro se plaintiffs must pay for a copy of any deposition 3 transcript before receiving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff was previously informed that he 4 would be responsible for this litigation cost in the Court’s March 11, 2022 First Informational 5 Order. (ECF No. 5, p. 7.) 6 If Plaintiff wishes to obtain a complete copy of his deposition transcript, he may contact 7 the court reporter directly to purchase one. Contact information for the court reporter is included 8 in the excerpts Plaintiff’s deposition transcript attached as an exhibit in support of Defendants’ 9 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 63-4, pp. 3–12.) 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for Court to order Defendant to provide requested 11 document, (ECF No. 77), is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for 12 summary judgment remains due on or before October 3, 2024. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: September 7, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28