ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION CONCERNING SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW

(ECF No. 128.)

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Kevin D. Bryant ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on December 26, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendants Lieutenant C. Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos, on Plaintiff's claim for retaliation. (ECF No. 16.) The events in the complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This case is in the discovery phase.

On June 3, 2016, the Court issued an order authorizing the issuance of two subpoenas on Plaintiff's behalf. (ECF No. 113.) For one of the subpoenas, the Court authorized "the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing Christian Pfeiffer, Warden of K.V.S.P., to produce those documents which are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order to the Court for in camera review." (ECF No. 113 at 6 ¶3.) Attachment 2 commanded Warden Pfeiffer to "[p]roduce any and all records, reports, and recorded interviews of investigations conducted by the CDCR concerning Plaintiff's allegations of staff misconduct of Correctional Officers Patrick Gallagher and Ramon R. Romero with respect to the June 8, 2010, assault on Plaintiff." (Attachment 2 to ECF No. 107.) The two subpoenas were issued, and on June 27, 2016, the Court directed personal service by the Marshal. (ECF No. 126.)

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion regarding service of subpoenas and the Court's in camera review. (ECF No. 128.) Defendants have not filed an opposition. Plaintiff's motion is now before the Court.

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

In his motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to "make sure and verify that the KVSP Warden Christian Pfeiffer did in fact provide to the Court all the records that were ordered by the Court in ECF 107 & 113" during in camera review. (ECF No. 128 at 1.) Plaintiff also requests the Court to verify that "every record listed in [Plaintiff's motion to compel] and the records and reports that were required to be filed and created by CDCR pursuant to their policy and procedure and state law" were provided. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also requests an evidentiary hearing, if all of the records are not provided. Plaintiff also requests the Court to determine if the CDCR's investigations were conducted in compliance with CDCR policy and state law, and to consider Defendants' motives. Plaintiff has submitted fifty-six pages of exhibits to the Court to assist the Court in determining which documents must be provided in response to the subpoena. (Exhibits to ECF No. 128.)

Discussion

To date, the Court has not received any documents for in camera review. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is premature. Further, Plaintiff is advised that if documents are submitted for in camera review, the Court shall not conduct investigations on Plaintiff's behalf. As stated in the June 3, 2016 order, the Court requested in camera review for the purpose of "review[ing] the records for any relevant evidence." (ECF No. 107 at 4:3.)

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's motion concerning service of subpoenas and in camera review, filed on August 11, 2016, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.