Opinion
1:20-cv-00997-DAD-EPG (PC)
06-13-2022
JOSE MIGUEL DE LA CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. OSCAR GALLOWAY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION RE: IMPROPER WITHOLDING OF STATEMENTAL DOCUMENTS OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS (ECF NO. 47)
Jose Miguel Da Le Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion regarding improper “withholding of statemental documents of deposition transcripts.” (ECF No. 47).
In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that medical personnel are intentionally withholding “statemental documentation” that will support his medical argument, and that they are deliberately sabotaging his case. Plaintiff lists numerous pages that he alleges are being improperly withheld. Plaintiff then states that the documents are pages from his deposition transcript, and that he wants the missing transcript pages to “prove truth of the matter.” (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff's motion will be denied. First, it is not clear what Plaintiff is asking for. Plaintiff alleges that medical personnel are withholding documents, but then alleges that transcript pages are being withheld, not medical records. It is not clear how unnamed medical personnel are responsible for providing Plaintiff with deposition transcripts.
Additionally, Plaintiff already filed a request for transcripts. (ECF No. 40). The Court denied Plaintiff's request and informed Plaintiff that he could request a copy of the transcripts from the officer who transcribed the deposition, for a fee. (ECF No. 41). There is no indication in Plaintiff's motion that he requested a copy of the transcripts from the offer who transcribed the deposition.
Finally, while Plaintiff alleges that he needs the documents to “prove truth of the matter” and that the documents will support his “medical argument, ” Plaintiff does not identify the contents of the documents he is seeking or explain how the documents will prove the truth of the matter or support his medical argument.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.