Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01288-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO VELASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN.

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

HOLD NONPARTY ALEJANDRO SERRANO

IN CONTEMPT

ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE HEARING 

AS TO NONPARTY ALEJANDRO 

SERRANO’S NONCOMPLIANCE WITH 

SUBPOENA

Clerk of the Court to Serve Non-party

Hearing Date: January 21, 2025, 1:30 PM

Background

On April 12, 2024, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing in this matter for October 

4, 2024, at 10:30 AM in Bakersfield before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. (Doc. 102). 

In advance of the evidentiary hearing, on September 17, 2024, Petitioner Ricardo Velasquez 

served a subpoena upon Alejandro Serrano commanding him to appear and give testimony. See

(Doc. 119, Exhibit 1).

The Court convened for evidentiary hearing on October 4, 2024, at 10:30 AM, and Mr. 

Serrano failed to appear. (Doc. 109). Following the hearing, counsel for Petitioner requested 

that the Court issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Serrano in light of his failure to appear. Id. The 

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 7
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

Court took the matter under submission and directed counsel for Petitioner to undertake further 

reasonable efforts to coordinate the appearance of Mr. Serrano. Id. On October 25, 2024, 

Petitioner filed a report detailing his unsuccessful efforts following the evidentiary hearing to 

communicate with Mr. Serrano. (Doc. 112). Thereafter, at the Court’s request, the parties filed 

a joint report identifying their dates of availability to reconvene for continued evidentiary 

hearing.

On November 4, 2024, the Court issued an order for Mr. Serrano to show cause why he 

should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the Court 

to give testimony. (Doc. 119). The Court ordered Mr. Serrano to appear for the show cause 

hearing on December 19, 2024, at 11:00 AM, before the undersigned. Id. at 4.

On November 13, 2024, Mr. Serrano filed a response to the show cause order in which 

he offered various explanations for his failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing – including 

that he did not have sufficient time after receiving the subpoena (more than two weeks prior to 

the hearing) to make arrangements to appear and because he suffered from certain physical and 

mental disabilities. (Doc. 120). In his response, Mr. Serrano requested permission to appear at 

the upcoming show cause hearing via Zoom. Accordingly, on November 27, 2024, the Court 

issued a further order to show cause for the limited purpose of affording Mr. Serrano the option 

of appearing at the December 19 hearing either in person or via Zoom. (Doc. 123).

On December 11, 2024, Mr. Serrano contacted the undersigned’s courtroom deputy via 

email and requested Zoom log-in information for the show cause hearing. Mr. Serrano was 

provided with the Zoom connection details.

The Court convened for the show cause hearing promptly at 11:00 AM on December 19, 

2024. (Doc. 130). Counsel for the parties and Petitioner were present via Zoom. Mr. Serrano 

failed to appear, notwithstanding that the undersigned’s courtroom deputy had forwarded to him 

the Zoom connection details at 10:52 AM as a reminder. After discussion with the parties, at 

11:11 AM, as Mr. Serrano had neither connected to the hearing nor communicated with the Court 

to explain his absence, the Court adjourned.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 7
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

Discussion

A. The Subpoena and Service of the Subpoena on Mr. Serrano

Where a person to be examined is not a party to the action, the witness’s attendance may 

be compelled by issuing a subpoena under Rule 45. Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure sets out the requirements for a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (a)(1)(A). 

Rule 45 requires that every subpoena must state the court from which it issued, state the 

title of the action and its civil-action number, specify to each person to whom it is directed the 

time and place set for the hearing, and set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv).

Review of the subpoena issued here shows that it complied with the requirements of Rule 

45. The subpoena states that it is issued from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California and contains the case name and number. The text of Rule 45(d) and (e) is 

included. The subpoena commands Mr. Serrano to appear on October 4, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. at 

the U.S. District Courthouse at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield. See (Doc. 119, Exhibit 1).

Rule 45 requires “delivering a copy to the named person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). In 

this instance, the Petitioner is a party to this action and is represented by counsel. The proof of 

service signed by counsel’s agent (investigator Victor D. Gonzalez) reflects that Mr. Serrano

was served with a copy of the subpoena in person on September 17, 2024. (Doc. 119, Exhibit 

1). The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 45 have been substantially complied with in 

this instance.

B. Contempt Proceedings for Non-Compliance with a Valid Subpoena

The only authority in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to sanction a nonparty to an 

action for failure to comply with a subpoena is Rule 45(g). Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, 

Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983). A properly issued subpoena is itself a court order and a 

party’s noncompliance may warrant contempt sanctions. Id. at 494 n.5; U.S. S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 

621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 2010). Rule 45(g) provides that the court “may hold in contempt a 

person, who having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order 

related to it.” Where a party is seeking to have a contempt sanction imposed against a nonparty, 

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 7
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

the nonparty has the right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 697-97; 

Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1342 (8th Cir. 1975). 

Determining whether a contempt proceeding is civil or criminal is determined by 

examining the character of the relief granted. Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Longshore & 

Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). Where the purpose of 

the proceeding is to compel compliance with a court order, the action is proceeding for civil 

contempt. In re D.I. Operating Co., 240 F. Supp. 672, 675 (D. Nev. 1965). “[A] court may 

impose civil contempt sanctions to (1) compel or coerce obedience to a court order, and/or (2) 

compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s 

noncompliance.” Ahearn, 721 F.3d at 1131. Contempt sanctions tailored to coerce compliance 

with a court’s order may include jailing the noncompliant person until he complies. See S.E.C. 

v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732, 732-33 (9th Cir. 1987).

There is no requirement that the contempt be willful and there is no good faith exception 

to the requirement that court orders must be obeyed. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder 

Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

“The party moving for contempt has the burden to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific court order.” Forsythe v. Brown, 

281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D. Nev. 2012) report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:10-CV-00716-

RCJ, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012). “Once the moving party shows by clear and 

convincing evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific court order, the burden 

shifts to the contemnor to show that he or she took every reasonable step to comply and to explain 

why compliance was not possible.” Forsythe, 281 F.R.D. at 587.

C. The District Court’s Province to Conduct Contempt Proceedings

“28 U.S.C. § 636, which governs the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, requires a 

magistrate to refer contempt charges to a district court judge.” Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991); see 28 U.S.C. § 636 (e)(6) (“the magistrate judge 

shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any 

person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring such 

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 7
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

person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should 

not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified”); Mondragon v. R T Farm Labor, 

Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM, 2024 WL 3949345, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024) 

(“Essentially, the magistrate judge’s role is to determine whether the movant has established a 

prima facie case of contempt – i.e., whether the movant has shown by clear and convincing 

evidence that the party or nonparty has violated a court order”) (citation and quotation omitted).

As the undersigned previously determined that Mr. Serrano violated a specific and 

definite order of the Court by failing to appear for the evidentiary hearing in response to 

Petitioner’s subpoena (Doc. 119), the undersigned will certify the below facts to the assigned 

District Judge to determine why Mr. Serrano should not be adjudged in contempt and imprisoned 

until he appears to give sworn testimony in this matter as previously ordered.

Certification of Facts

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), the undersigned certifies the following facts to 

the district judge assigned to this matter:

1. The subpoena directing Mr. Serrano to appear in Court to give testimony on 

October 4, 2024 (see Doc. 119, Exhibit 1) complied with the applicable 

procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45;

2. Petitioner’s subpoena was properly served on Mr. Serrano, through personal 

service on him on September 17, 2024 (Doc. 119 at 2);

3. On October 4, 2024, Mr. Serrano failed to appear in Court in compliance with the 

subpoena;

4. On November 4, 2024, the undersigned issued an order to show cause directing 

Mr. Serrano to appear at a show cause hearing on December 19, 2024, why 

contempt sanctions should not issue;

5. On November 13, 2024, Mr. Serrano filed a response in which he represented that 

he received the Court’s show cause order, offered explanations for his failure to 

appear on October 4 in compliance with the subpoena, and requested to appear at 

the December 19 show cause hearing via Zoom;

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 7
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

6

6. On November 27, 2024, the Court issued a further order to show cause for the 

limited purpose of affording Mr. Serrano the option of appearing at the December 

19 hearing either in person or via Zoom. (Doc. 123);

7. On December 11, 2024, Mr. Serrano contacted the undersigned’s courtroom 

deputy via email and requested Zoom log-in information for the show cause 

hearing. Mr. Serrano was provided with the Zoom connection details; and

8. The Court convened for the show cause hearing promptly at 11:00 AM on 

December 19, 2024, and Mr. Serrano failed to appear. (Doc. 130)

Based on these facts, the undersigned recommends that nonparty Alejandro Serrano be 

held in civil contempt. Mr. Serrano has failed to comply with clear and definite court orders—

both the subpoena to appear in Court to give testimony on October 4, 2024, and the Court’s 

November 4, 2024, show cause order and order to appear on December 19, 2024. Accordingly, 

the undersigned will set the matter for contempt proceedings before the assigned district judge 

and recommend imposition of sanctions.

Conclusion, Order, and Findings and Recommendations

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Nonparty Alejandro Serrano shall appear in person before District Judge Kirk E. 

Sherriff on January 21, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (KES), United States 

District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA to show cause why he should not 

be held in contempt for failure to comply with Petitioner’s subpoena;

2. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear in person for the show cause hearing 

unless otherwise excused;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail this order to Mr. Serrano at:

Alejandro Serrano

2038 N. Divisadero Street

Visalia, CA 93291

And it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED:

1. A contempt citation be issued against Alejandro Serrano;

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

2. A fine of $500 be assessed against Alejandro Serrano;

3. An order issue directing Alejando Serrano to pay to Petitioner reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with Petitioner’s efforts to obtain 

Mr. Serrano’s appearance to testify; and

4. An arrest warrant issue for Alejandro Serrano and he be ordered detained pending 

his compliance with the subpoena commanding him to appear and give testimony 

in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01288-KES-CDB Document 131 Filed 12/19/24 Page 7 of 7