Cook v. Torres

Background

David L. Cook, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Concord and Antioch police officers illegally searched him on October 3, 2018; August 16, 2018; October 15, 2018; and January 9, 2019, leading to multiple arrests.

The defendants argued that Cook was on court-ordered probation during the first three searches, making those searches legal under the circumstances. For the January 9, 2019 search, they argued that Cook’s no-contest plea barred his claim for money damages under Heck v. Humphrey. Cook generally argued that he was not on probation and that the searches were illegal. The defendants’ summary-judgment motions were pending, and Cook’s opposition was due shortly.

Discovery and Subpoenas

The court denied Cook’s amended motion to compel discovery, docket number 67. Cook sought police dispatch communications from Antioch police defendants, but those defendants had already provided the materials. His request for citizen complaints and grievances was overbroad and not relevant to the facts and issues of the case. Any request for sanctions was also denied.

Cook returned two subpoenas. One sought surveillance video from a 7-11 store concerning the January 9, 2019 incident. The court found that the video was not relevant to the pending summary-judgment motion or the defendants’ Heck argument. The court stated that if Cook proceeded beyond summary judgment, it could later order the Marshal to serve the subpoena.

The second subpoena sought cellular-phone data, call records, and apparently a recording connected to a phone belonging to A. Plucus, a nonparty. The court found that Cook had not shown that Metro PCS would possess the requested recording or that the call records were relevant. It also noted that Cook had already received dispatch communications containing the conversation he sought. The court identified privacy concerns involving the nonparty’s phone records and stated that, if Cook knew the individual, he could seek the recording directly without court intervention.

The court concluded that the proposed recording would merely confirm information already stated in defendant Torres’ declaration and police report: that dispatch advised Torres that Cook was under Postrelease Community Supervision. The court also noted records indicating that Cook remained on court-ordered probation. It therefore deferred ordering the U.S. Marshal to serve either subpoena and directed the Marshal to take no action until receiving a further court order. If the case continued beyond summary judgment and the recording became necessary, the court said it would require briefing on privacy concerns and the burden on Metro PCS and the third-party individual.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Cook’s motion to stay the case because the discovery issues had been resolved and he did not need to wait for the subpoenaed information. The court extended the deadline for Cook’s opposition to the summary-judgment motions to April 12, 2021, while reminding him that any new discovery requests had to concern the issues in the case.

The court also denied Cook’s motion for the return of property, docket number 79, because the people he identified were not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the requested relief was not part of the operative complaint.

The order therefore denied the amended motion to compel, denied the motion for return of property, and denied the motion to stay. It deferred service of the subpoenas and extended Cook’s summary-judgment opposition deadline. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motions or decide whether the searches were lawful.