Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Donn Richardson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers Anderson, Gurrola, and Castillo. The first amended complaint alleges excessive force and sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants answered the complaint on June 30, 2026. Richardson subsequently filed a motion styled as a Pitchess motion seeking access to defendants' personnel records to uncover prior excessive force incidents or misconduct, and also sought to compel responses to interrogatories he appeared to be propounding for the first time in the motion itself.
The court recognized that a Pitchess motion is a California state-law procedural vehicle allowing criminal defendants to discover peace officer personnel records under limited circumstances. Citing precedent from the Eastern District of California, the court noted that Pitchess motions are appropriate only for defendants in state criminal trials, not for plaintiffs in federal civil rights actions. The court therefore analyzed the request under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery in federal court.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Richardson's motion in its entirety. It held that Pitchess procedures do not apply in federal court and that the motion could not be construed as a proper motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The court found that Richardson failed to demonstrate he had served any written discovery requests—either document requests under Rule 34 or interrogatories under Rule 33—directly on defendants. The motion was supported only by Richardson's request that it be granted, without any showing of a prior discovery dispute or objections from defendants.
The court ordered Richardson to serve discovery requests directly on defendants pursuant to Rules 33 and 34, consistent with the federal discovery framework that envisions party-to-party exchange before court involvement. The court directed the clerk to send Richardson copies of Rules 33 and 34 for guidance. The order instructs that if defendants object and the parties cannot resolve the dispute, Richardson may then file a motion to compel under Rule 37.
Key Takeaways
- Pitchess motions are a California state criminal procedure mechanism and are not available to plaintiffs in federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Federal discovery requires parties to serve document requests (Rule 34) and interrogatories (Rule 33) directly on opposing parties before seeking court intervention.
- A motion to compel under Rule 37 is only appropriate after a party has served discovery requests, received objections or inadequate responses, and attempted to resolve the dispute informally.
- Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules governing discovery practice, including the prohibition on filing discovery requests directly with the court.
- The court's denial does not preclude the plaintiff from serving proper discovery requests and, if necessary, filing a compliant motion to compel after a genuine dispute arises.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the fundamental distinction between state criminal discovery procedures and federal civil discovery rules. It serves as a clear directive to pro se prisoner litigants that they cannot import state-law mechanisms like Pitchess motions into federal court and must instead follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's structured discovery process. The decision emphasizes the party-driven nature of federal discovery and the prerequisite steps—service of requests, meet-and-confer efforts, and specific identification of sought materials—before judicial intervention is warranted.