Opinion
1:21-cv-01520-JLT-EPG-HC
11-07-2022
SANTOSH RAM, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Santosh Ram is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding for assault on due process grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence.
The undersigned previously denied Petitioner's motion to compel discovery and for a deposition. (ECF No. 21.) Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to his request for the CCTV footage of the incident, specifically alleging that the DHO's description of the video “was inaccurate and false” because “[t]he video did not show any strike” and that he never made the statements relied upon by the DHO in finding that Petitioner committed the acts as charged. (ECF No. 22 at 2, 3.) Respondent did not file a response within the twenty-one-day response period provided by the local rules. See LR 230(1). However, the Court finds that a response from Respondent will assist the Court in this matter.
Petitioner's allegation that the video did not show any strike would also contradict the incident report and the statements of the correctional officers involved.
Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a response to Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22). The response should address, inter alia, (1) whether Petitioner's allegations are sufficient to satisfy the good cause standard articulated in Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997), with regard to the CCTV footage, and (2) whether the video in question still exists and can be obtained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.