Opinion
1:18-cv-00551-AWI-BAM (PC)
09-21-2021
DONNY STEWARD, Plaintiff, v. IGBINOSA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO BRADY V. MARYLAND (ECF NO. 50)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Donny Steward (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Igbinosa, Faria, Nelson, Lewis, Brightwell, Cerda, and Hill for violations of the Eighth Amendment.
The Court has recommended dismissal of Defendant Nelson, without prejudice, for failure to serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 43.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for records pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), filed September 8, 2021. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants have not had the opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
In his motion, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to disclosure of approximately 3, 656 pages of medical records retrieved by defense counsel from Plaintiff's medical and central file. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to an award of sanctions from Defendants and a copy of the records retrieved, as it puts Defendants at an unfair advantage over Plaintiff in the discovery process. (Id.)
As explained in the Court's August 23, 2021 order denying Plaintiff's motion regarding his right to privacy and equal protection, (ECF No. 45), the Court has repeatedly held that section 3370(e) of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations supports the proposition that the Office of the Attorney General has access or control over documents contained within a prisoner plaintiff's central file. See, e.g., Porter v. Jennings, No. 1:10-cv-01811-AWI-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1434989, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). Plaintiff has placed his own medical care at issue by bringing this action, and he does not have a right to have Defendants serve him with copies of any records they obtain from his central file or health records when such records are equally available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not stated whether he has made any attempts to access his own records at this time, and he is not entitled to receive those records at Defendants' expense when he has made no effort to obtain them on his own.
To the extent Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to disclosure of his medical records from Defendants pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Plaintiff is informed that the protections provided by Brady are limited to criminal actions, not civil actions such as the instant case.
Finally, as previously stated, Plaintiff has identified no conduct on the part of defense counsel or Defendants that the Court finds sanctionable at this time. The request for sanctions is therefore denied.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for records, (ECF No. 50), is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.