Opinion
No. 2:07-cv-2290 LKK KJN P
07-13-2012
STEWART MANAGO, Plaintiff, v. BRAD WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), who proceeds, in forma pauperis and without counsel, in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed two motions for summary judgment, which are now fully briefed. Presently pending is plaintiff's June 4, 2012 motion requesting the court's authorization fo file a motion for reconsideration of this court's order filed April 9, 2012. In pertinent part, that order directed defense counsel for defendant Brockett to return confidential audio and written material to the CCI Legal Affairs Office, for the purpose of according plaintiff additional opportunity to access the material, and additional time to respond to the material in a surreply. Defense counsel filed a notice of compliance with the court's order. Plaintiff thereafter filed a surreply, rendering the motions for summary judgment fully briefed.
As noted in the court's April 9, 2012 order, due to plaintiff's prolific filings, it became necessary for "[p]laintiff [to] request[] permission of the court . . . due to the court's prior instruction that plaintiff refrain from filing any further documents in this court, or from corresponding with defense counsel, without prior court authorization. (See Dkt. No. 211 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 206 at 4-5.)" (Dkt. No. 228 at 1.)
Nevertheless, in the present motion, plaintiff states that he was not given access to the audio files, or the transcript, of the relevant testimony of defendants Brockett and Chapman before the State Personnel Board, relative to the termination of defendant Brockett (Case No. 06-0655). The court's review of this confidential material, submitted under seal by defense counsel, indicates that there were three days of hearings over a nine-month period, on May 2, 2007, January 24, 2008, and February 25, 2008. The audio quality is poor, and it appears that no transcript of these proceedings has been provided to the court, although the administrative law judge stated at the first hearing that transcripts could be requested.
Accordingly, defendant Brockett will be required to provide both plaintiff and the court a copy of the full transcript of these proceedings, or show cause why this task cannot be completed. After defense counsel has complied with this order, the court will address the necessity of a supplemental briefing schedule in this case, due both to the supplemental material, and the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Woods v. Carey, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir., July 06, 2012).
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 232), is denied in part and granted in part; plaintiff shall file no further matters in support of his motion but is granted relief as provided herein.
2. Within ten (10) days after the filing date of this order, counsel for defendant Brockett shall:
A. File under seal, and serve on plaintiff, one copy each of the full transcript of the above-described proceedings; OR
B. Show cause why counsel is unable to comply with this order.
3. Also within ten (10) days after the filing date of this order, ALL defense counsel shall file under seal, and serve on plaintiff, all available transcripts of any audio recordings that have already been submitted to the court; any transcripts submitted and served pursuant to this order shall be specifically identified in an accompanying separate statement filed under seal with the court, and served on plaintiff.
4. Failure of any counsel, without adequate explanation, to provide both the court and plaintiff with a transcript of any audio recording submitted in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
_________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
mana2290.ord.re.PB.audio