Silverman v. Lane

Background

Jacob Silverman, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. The court had previously found viable claims concerning excessive force and failure to protect his safety. In an earlier ruling, it dismissed with prejudice certain excessive-force claims against Defendants Twitchell and Ayala concerning June 24, 2018, and a water-deprivation claim. It allowed a failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Ayala to proceed and ordered further briefing on an excessive-force claim against Defendant Lane and that failure-to-protect claim.

Discovery and sanctions

Silverman filed a motion to compel production of video surveillance. Defendants opposed it, stating that the cameras identified in his requests were live-feed cameras and did not record. The court found that defense counsel had provided an adequate response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1), including a certification that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry showed that the requested recordings did not exist. The court therefore denied Silverman’s motion to compel under Rule 37(a).

Silverman also asked to withdraw an earlier discovery motion because he had not met and conferred with defense counsel before filing it. The court granted that motion and ordered the earlier motion stricken and terminated. The court denied Defendants’ sanctions motion in light of Silverman’s withdrawal request and denied Silverman’s sanctions motion because Defendants’ discovery response was adequate.

Motion to amend

Silverman sought permission to file a new amended complaint to address the dismissed water-deprivation claim. The court treated that request as asking it to reconsider the dismissal. The court denied the motion because Silverman provided no allegations showing that a proposed amendment would cure the deficiencies identified earlier. The order expressly denied the motion without prejudice, however, and allowed Silverman to file a proposed amendment together with a renewed motion for leave to amend. The court stated that it would review the proposed amendment to determine whether it alleged a legally sufficient § 1983 water-deprivation claim. The renewed filing was due within 28 days, and no other claims would be considered.

Return of exhibits and disposition

The court granted Silverman’s motion for the return of exhibits that had accompanied his amended complaint. It directed the clerk to send him the original exhibits with a copy of the order. The order terminated Docket Nos. 55, 57, 58, 63, and 64. Judge Beth Labson Freeman therefore denied the discovery and sanctions motions, granted the withdrawal and exhibit-return motions, and denied without prejudice the motion to file a new amended complaint.