Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOTERZSTAIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff Sheldon Newsome, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that defendant Loterzstain violated his First and Eighth 

Amendment rights by retaliating against him and denying him adequate medical care. Pending 

before me is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation wherein he claims that non-party 

correctional officer (“CO”) F. Mohmand deliberately destroyed all his legal materials in 

retaliation for plaintiff’s refusal to engage in abusive conduct towards another inmate. ECF 

No. 97. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation and monetary damages for himself. He also asks that judgment be entered for him 

on the merits due to CO Mohmand’s conduct. Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 101. On 

review, I find that plaintiff has not met the criteria warranting sanctions. His motion will 

therefore be denied.

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 135 Filed 07/18/23 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Legal Standard1

“A federal trial court has the inherent discretionary power to make appropriate evidentiary 

rulings in response to the destruction or spoliation of relevant evidence.” Med. Lab. Mgmt. 

Consultants v. ABC, 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002); Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1329 

(9th Cir. 1993). Sanctions for spoliation of evidence may be imposed under the court’s inherent 

powers to manage its own affairs. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Courts also have authority to sanction a party pursuant to Rule 37 for failure either to make 

disclosures or to cooperate in discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Possible sanctions available 

include default or dismissal of claims or defenses, preclusion of evidence, an adverse inference 

instruction, and monetary sanctions. See Leon, 464 F.3d at 958-59; Glover, 6 F.3d at 1329; In re 

Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Caruso v. 

Solorio, 2021 WL 3514610, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021). 

Courts look to a three-part test to determine whether sanctions for spoilation should be 

imposed: 

(1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation 

to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were 

destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” and (3) that the evidence 

was “relevant” to the party’s claim or defense such that a 

reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or 

defense.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 989-90 (N.D. Cal. 2012). To decide 

which specific spoliation sanction to impose, courts generally consider three factors: (1) the 

degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice 

suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid 

substantial unfairness to the opposing party. See Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 

604, 626 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Apple Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d at 992); see also Cont’l Cas. Co. v. 

St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 265 F.R.D. 510, 533 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 

1 Plaintiff bring his motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Evidence 1004. However, 

I find that rule inapplicable; it relates to the admissibility of evidence of the content of a writing, 

record, or photograph. I will therefore construe the motion for sanctions as having been brought 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and this court’s inherent powers.

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 135 Filed 07/18/23 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Any sanction should be designed to (1) deter parties from destroying evidence; (2) place 

the risk of an erroneous evaluation of the content of the destroyed evidence on the party 

responsible for its destruction; and (3) restore the party harmed by the loss of evidence helpful to 

its case to where the party would have been in the absence of spoliation. See Compass Bank v. 

Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1052 (S.D. Cal. 2015); Apple Inc., 888 

F. Supp. 2d at 992 n.10; Reinsdorf, 296 F.R.D. at 626. Sanctions under the court’s “inherent 

powers must be exercised with restraint” and should be appropriate to the conduct that triggered 

the sanction. Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991)).

Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Assertions Regarding his Legal Property

Plaintiff claims that, while housed at California Medical Facility (“CMF”), CO Mohmand 

directed him to assault another inmate, William Garcia. Plaintiff refused the directive, leading 

CO Mohmand to target plaintiff by issuing falsified Rules Violation Reports (“RVR”) and having 

him placed repeatedly in administrative segregation (“Ad-Seg”). 

On March 20, 2021, plaintiff asserts that he was placed in Ad-Seg due to yet another 

falsified RVR issued by CO Mohmand. ECF No. 97 at 4. The property inventory log 

accompanying his placement indicates that he possessed legal materials at the time. See id. at 18. 

Plaintiff states that these materials were related to two pending lawsuits (including this case), and 

he was collecting evidence to initiate a third lawsuit against CO Mohmand. Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff was again placed in Ad-Seg on August 9, 2021, for a falsified RVR issued by CO 

Mohmand.

2

 Id. at 4. As a result of the RVR, plaintiff was set to be transferred to California 

Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff blames the loss of his legal materials on CO Mohmand. He submits a declaration 

by James Earl Nelson, an inmate who claims to have witnessed CO Mohmand enter plaintiff’s 

2 CO Mohmand drafted an RVR on July 29, 2021, after plaintiff reportedly said, “fuck 

you bitch your days just number, and I will get you.” See ECF No. 101-3 at 6. Plaintiff was 

found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and assessed 60 days of good time credits. Id. at 15-16. 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 135 Filed 07/18/23 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CMF housing unit on August 9, 2021, with two boxes of plaintiff’s legal property. Id. at 5, 26-

27. When Nelson asked CO Mohmand if plaintiff was moving into the unit, the officer responded 

that she was “just taking care of his legal property.” Id. at 26.

B. Defendant’s Opposition

Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion, arguing that there is no evidence that he was 

involved in the alleged loss of plaintiff’s legal materials. Defendant also submits evidence 

undercutting several of plaintiff’s claims. For example, plaintiff asserts that he was housed in 

Ad-Seg on March 20, 2021, due to a falsified RVR, but prison records show that he was 

transferred from CMF’s general population to San Joaquin General Hospital that day for an 

emergency medical visit, returning nine days later. ECF No. 101-4 at 33. Prison records also 

indicate that plaintiff was not housed in Ad-Seg on March 20. ECF No. 101-2 at 25. Further, CO 

Mohmand was apparently not working on March 20 (suggesting that she may not have had a role 

in inventorying plaintiff’s property that day) or on August 9 (undercutting inmate Nelson’s claim 

that he saw her moving plaintiff’s property). ECF No. 101-2 at 2-3, 19, 23. CO Mohmand also 

submits a declaration denying plaintiff’s claims that she targeted inmate Garcia or any other 

inmate, that she falsified RVRs, or that she had any involvement in inventorying, boxing up, or 

moving any of plaintiff’s property on the dates in question. ECF No. 101-3 at 2-3.

In addition, defendant submits evidence showing that plaintiff was transferred several 

times between November 2021 and March 2022. See ECF No. 101-4 at 23. The inventory logs 

accompanying these transfers are summarized here in relevant part: 

• August 9, 2021: Plaintiff’s property was consolidated into 12 boxes, including 

three boxes of “mail,” but the checkbox next to “Legal Material” was unchecked.

ECF No. 101-2 at 13. 

• November 7, 2021: Plaintiff was transferred with 12 boxes of personal property, 

but the checkbox next to “Legal Material” was unchecked. ECF No. 101-2 at 12.

• February 17, 2022: Plaintiff possessed 1 bag and 3 boxes of property, and the 

checkbox next to “Legal Material” was checked. ECF No. 101-2 at 9. 

• March 4, 2022: Plaintiff possessed 2 bags and 10 boxes of property, including 1 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 135 Filed 07/18/23 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

box of “misc legal & personal paper work,” but the checkbox next to “Legal 

Material” was unchecked. ECF No. 101-2 at 8.

C. Analysis

I find sanctions are not warranted on the facts presented. As an initial matter, plaintiff has 

not shown either that the court has jurisdiction over non-party CO Mohmand or that defendant 

was involved in the alleged loss of plaintiff’s legal materials. Also crucially, plaintiff has not 

identified any missing materials that are relevant to the instant case, negating an essential element 

required to find spoliation. And plaintiff’s theory that CO Mohmand was responsible for his lost 

property is undercut by prison records showing that she was not working on two significant dates. 

Further, the property inventory log accompanying plaintiff’s later placement in Ad-Seg makes no 

mention of legal materials. ECF No. 97 at 20. Property inventory logs created on November 7, 

2021—following his transfer out of CMF—and on March 4, 2022—following his arrival at 

CHCF—similarly make no mention of legal materials. Id. at 22 & 24. For these reasons, 

plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 97, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 135 Filed 07/18/23 Page 5 of 5