Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678-14/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY RAUL BARRON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. ALCARAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2678 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 The court has reviewed in camera the materials submitted by defendant Whitfield 

pursuant to the court’s orders filed September 30, 2016, and October 25, 2016. See ECF Nos. 92, 

96. For the reasons that follow, defendant is directed to produce to plaintiff limited portions of 

these materials. 

The court initially reviewed the sealed document entitled “Interviews and Interrogations 

for the CDC Investigator,” and attached forms. See ECF No. 97. The court granted defendant’s 

request to seal this document based on the determination that making it publicly available could 

threaten the safety and security of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) and its correctional facilities. See ECF No. 96. The court has determined that only one 

limited portion of this document is potentially relevant to this action, specifically regarding 

defendant Whitfield’s response when plaintiff stated, at a January 15, 2009 Institutional 

Classification Committee (ICC) meeting, “I have no comment.” The court has determined that 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 98 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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

the relevant portion of the sealed document is the “Miranda Admonishment” script set forth on 

page 36 of the PDF document filed under seal. Defendant will be directed to provide plaintiff 

with an unredacted copy of this admonishment, viz., the bottom two-thirds of page 36 of the PDF 

document filed under seal. 

The court has also reviewed in camera the full appeal decision in administrative appeal 

Log No. SOL-06-03714, submitted and exhausted by an inmate other than plaintiff. The court 

previously noted that the Third Level Decision of this appeal, produced to plaintiff with 

defendant’s Amended Response to plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 9, suggested that the 

full decision might be relevant to this action. See ECF No. 92 at 9-13. The court noted in 

pertinent part, id. at 12: 

[T]he court’s independent review of the three appeals . . . indicates 

that only one appears to be potentially relevant to this action, 

specifically Appeal Log No. SOL-06-03714, which includes the 

allegation that Whitfield “approached [the inmate] and gave him a 

validation pack” that included a CDC Form 128-B; that Whitfield 

“acted in an unprofessional manner and failed to properly explain 

the validation process;” and, most importantly, that the CDC Form 

128-B described the inmate’s “refusal to cooperate or communicate 

with staff relative to his suspected involvement in the Northern 

Structure/Nuestra Raza Prison Gang.” ECF No. 88 at 15. While it 

is unclear who wrote the CDC Form 128-B or otherwise 

participated in its preparation, the combination of these elements 

indicates that the contents of this appeal may be consistent with 

plaintiff’s claims in the instant action. Review of this appeal may 

lead to admissible evidence that Whitfield prepared or contributed 

to the preparation of a CDC Form 128-B chrono against another 

inmate who chose to remain silent under similar circumstances 

when asked about his suspected involvement with Northern 

Structure/Nuestra Raza prison gang. “Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, the court will order the submission of 

all documents associated with this appeal for in camera review and 

a determination of its relevance to this case. See Kelly v. City of 

San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 668 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“the weighted 

balancing test for resolving disputes about the official information 

privilege assures that it is the court, and not the holder of the 

documents, that has the ultimate power to decide whether there will 

be disclosure”). 

The court finds that one further document contained in this appeal may be relevant to this 

action, specifically regarding defendant Whitfield’s response to the silence of another inmate 

suspected of being affiliated with the Northern Structure/Nuestra Raza prison gang. This 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 98 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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

document is the September 23, 2006 CDCR-128B Form completed by defendant Whitfield, 

which states in part that it is a policy of such affiliates to respond “no comment” when 

questioned, thus providing evidence of that inmate’s gang affiliation. This 128B Form is found 

on pages 11 of the submitted document. Defendant will be directed to provide plaintiff with a 

copy of this chrono, redacted to exclude all information that could identify the nonparty inmate. 

The court finds that no other portions of the materials reviewed in camera are 

discoverable. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days after the filing 

date of this order, defendant Whitfield shall serve on plaintiff the following documents: 

1. An unredacted copy of the “Miranda Admonishment” section of page 36 of the PDF 

document entitled “Interviews and Interrogations for the CDC Investigator.” Matter other than 

the text following the heading “Miranda Admonishment” may be redacted from page 36 of the 

PDF document. 

 2. A copy of the CDCR-128B Form dated September 23, 20016, found at page 11 of 

Appeal Log No. SOL-06-03714, redacted to exclude any information that could identify the 

nonparty inmate. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 89, is denied as to all other materials reviewed 

in camera pursuant to this court’s previous order, ECF No. 92. 

4. The dispositive motion deadline in this action remains December 9, 2016. 

DATED: November 1, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 98 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3