Hernandez v. I.S.U.

Background

Joseph Hernandez, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleged that officers Kaufman, McBride, Townsend, and Bradbury violated due process by placing him in administrative segregation on August 5, 2017, based on unreliable evidence. He also alleged that officer Lacy retaliated against him by refusing to conduct an unbiased investigation of a grievance, after Hernandez had named Lacy in a staff complaint and a federal civil-rights action.

The order addressed Hernandez’s motion to compel further discovery responses, his notice seeking dismissal of defendant Townsend, the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, and the defendants’ request for more time to file a reply. The court noted that discovery was still ongoing.

Motion to Compel

The court construed the motion to compel as seeking three categories of documents: the August 3, 2017 confidential memorandum; unredacted copies of six emails produced in response to a document request; and documents related to the investigation of Grievance No. PBSP-17-01804.

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. It deferred a final ruling on production of the confidential memorandum and ordered the defendants to submit a copy to chambers within 14 days for an in-camera review, meaning a private review by the judge. After reviewing the memorandum, the court said it would decide whether production should be compelled, whether redactions were appropriate, and what access limits should apply. The court found the memorandum potentially relevant because it was referenced by the form used to place Hernandez in administrative segregation, but also recognized the defendants’ concerns about prison safety and confidential informants.

The court denied the request for unredacted copies of the emails. It found that the redacted information appeared to include the names and inmate numbers of other inmates and the name of correctional staff, and that Hernandez had not explained why the information was relevant or why disclosure outweighed confidentiality concerns. This denial was without prejudice to renewal with an explanation of the information’s relevance.

The court also denied the request for further responses concerning the investigation of Grievance No. PBSP-17-01804 because the defendants stated that no responsive documents existed and nothing in the record suggested that response was untruthful. This denial was without prejudice to renewal if Hernandez obtained evidence that the documents existed and the response was inaccurate.

Other Rulings

At Hernandez’s request, the court dismissed defendant Townsend from the action with prejudice because Hernandez said he had identified the wrong Townsend and intended to name Townsend Campbell instead.

Because discovery remained incomplete and the confidential memorandum was directly relevant to the case, the court dismissed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice to refiling after all outstanding discovery issues were resolved. The court also denied as moot the defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their reply in support of that motion.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order on August 11, 2023. The order resolved the specified discovery and scheduling matters but did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.