Opinion
No. 1:08-cv-01484 DGC
01-30-2012
Arthur Gaspard, Plaintiff, v. D. Castillo, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Arthur Gaspard, an inmate at a California state prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), which was superseded by his first amended complaint (Doc. 8). On September 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with leave to amend. Doc. 10. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 23, 2009. Doc. 14. Plaintiff now alleges that Defendant Castillo was terminated from his employment at the California state prison for abusing inmates, and has filed the instant Pitchess motion requesting Castillo's personnel file. Doc. 53. Defendants have filed a response in opposition. Doc. 56. No party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.
In Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1974), the California Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a law enforcement officer's personnel records if the defendant can show that the records are necessary character evidence. A Pitchess motion "may be appropriate only if brought by a defendant in the context of a state criminal trial, not by a plaintiff in a federal civil rights action." Turner v. Spence, No. CIV S 07-0022 GGH P, 2008 WL 927709, at *9 (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2008) (citations omitted). Petitioner's Pitchess motion will be "denied because it is misplaced in this federal action." Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC, 2009 WL 1220311, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009).
Moreover, Plaintiff's motion is untimely. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, was October 4, 2011. Doc. 32.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to produce evidence (Doc. 53) is denied.
__________________
David G. Campbell
United States District Judge