Opinion
No. 1:08-cv-00103-DGC.
February 26, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff William Chism, an inmate at a California state prison, filed a complaint against Defendants on January 22, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly allowed him to be beaten by another inmate and that he sustained serious injuries as a result of the assault. The complaint asserts a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for negligence and infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. #1.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the state law claims on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. Dkt. #23. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Dkt. #25. The Court therefore will dismiss the state law claims (counts two through five). Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 44-58.
Plaintiff has filed a Pitchess motion requesting complaints made by other inmates and related information contained in Defendants' personnel files. Dkt. #20; see Dkt. ##21, 22 26. In Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P.2d 897 (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 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. Apr. 4, 2008) (citations omitted). Plaintiff's Pitchess motion will be "denied because it is misplaced in this federal civil action." Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC, 2009 WL 1220311, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009).
Moreover, the motion is supported by nothing more than "information and belief." See Dkt. ##21 at 2, 22 ¶¶ 2-5. Plaintiff has established no factual link between the allegations of the complaint and the records he seeks. Review of Defendants' personnel records would constitute an impermissible fishing expedition.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss (Dkt. #23) is granted.
2. The four state law claims asserted in the complaint (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 44-58) are dismissed.
3. Plaintiff's motion for leave request for production of documents (Dkt. #20) is denied.