Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 22). 

Cesario Vizcarra Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9). Before 

the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel response to subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 22). For 

the following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. 

On October 17, 2022, the Court issued a subpoena duces tecum so that Plaintiff could seek 

document(s) that identify the Doe ISU Officers. (ECF No. 10). The Court also set a deadline for 

Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute named defendants in place of Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (Id., p. 

2). The Court informed Plaintiff that he should “identify with specificity the documents he is 

seeking and the person or entity he is seeking the documents from.” (Id.) The Court also directed 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/08/23 Page 1 of 4
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 Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff one copy of form AO 88B and one copy of form USM-285. 

(Id.). Because Plaintiff did not fill out the subpoena form correctly, the Court required Plaintiff to 

complete and fill out a new form. (ECF No. 13). 

Plaintiff submitted a new form. (ECF No. 14). On December 1, 2022, the Court directed 

service of the subpoena on the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison by the United 

States Marshals Service. (ECF No.15). The Court also provided the following information:

Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide the date or location of the alleged incident 

in the subpoena. However, based on the prior subpoena form submitted by 

Plaintiff, it appears that the incident occurred on or around October 8, 2020, 

between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on 3A facility, Building Five. Plaintiff alleges 

that on or around this date, the unit responsible for investigations in the prison 

(ISU) arrived at Plaintiff’s housing unit to interview him regarding a matter related 

to his criminal case. During the process of removing him, ISU officer(s) twisted 

his arm with force behind his back, which caused a break in his arm that had been 

surgically repaired and healed. Plaintiff has chosen to proceed on his Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim against the Doe ISU Officers who were directly 

responsible for breaking his arm. (ECF Nos. 6 & 7).

The Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison is only required to produce 

documents that identify, or that may reasonable help Plaintiff identify, the Doe 

ISU officer(s) involved in this incident. Alternatively, if the Litigation Coordinator 

is able to identify the Doe ISU Officer(s) who allegedly grabbed Plaintiff and 

twisted his arm on or around October 8, 2020, the Litigation Coordinator may 

provide those names to the Court via email at EPGorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If he 

or she does so, the Court will substitute the identified ISU Officer(s) in place of 

the Doe ISU Officers and will authorize service of process on the identified 

Officer(s).

(Id., p. 1-2). The Court directed the Litigation Coordinator to respond to the subpoena within 

twenty-one days. (Id., p. 2). 

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for a status of service of his subpoena for 

documents to identify the Doe defendants.1(ECF No. 16). Because no return of service had been 

filed, the Court extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to substitute named defendants in 

place of Doe ISU Officers 1- to April 10, 2023. (ECF No. 17). The United States Marshals 

Service personally served the subpoena on March 7, 2023. (ECF No. 18). 

The Litigation Coordinator e-mailed the Court an affidavit of no records on March 25, 

1 Plaintiff also requested to add a defendant. (ECF No. 16). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request without prejudice 

and noted that noted that “[i]f Plaintiff chooses to refile his motion to amend, he could explain the changed he is 

attempting to make to his complaint and include a copy of the proposed amended complaint.” (ECF No. 17, p. 1-2).

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/08/23 Page 2 of 4
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

2023. 

On April 26, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause “why the Court should not 

issue findings and recommendations to a district judge, recommending that this action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, failure to 

prosecute, and/or failure to comply with Rule 4(m).” (ECF No. 19, p. 2). The Court stated that it 

would vacate the order to show cause “if, in response, Plaintiff files a motion to substitute named 

defendants in place of the Doe defendants, files a motion to compel regarding the subpoena that 

was served on March 7, 2023, or files a motion for the issuance of a second subpoena for 

additional documents so that he can attempt to identify the Doe defendants.” (Id.)

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Corcoran State Prison’s response to 

the March 7, 2023 subpoena. (ECF No. 22). On June 8, 2023, the Court directed the Litigation 

Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison to file any response or opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 24). The Court also discharged the order to show cause 

and reset the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute named defendants in place of Doe 

ISU Officers 1-3 within forty-five days of a final order regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

(Id.) 

The Court’s order was served to the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison on 

June 8, 2023. To date, no response or opposition has been filed and the deadline to do so has 

passed. 

Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks responsive documents that reveal the names of the ISU officers

who Plaintiff alleges used excessive force against Plaintiff. Based on the information provided by 

Plaintiff, it appears that the incident occurred on or around October 8, 2020, between 2:00 p.m. 

and 3:00 p.m. in 3A facility, Building Five at Corcoran State Prison. These documents are 

relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs claims in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(1) advisory committee’s note to 1970 amendment (“[T]he scope of discovery through a 

subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and other discovery rules.”). 

While it appears that Corcoran State Prison has objected to the subpoena by an affidavit 

that indicates no responsive records were found, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the 

party who issued the subpoena to file a motion to compel. HI.Q, Inc. v. ZeetoGroup, LLC, Case 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/08/23 Page 3 of 4
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

No: 22cv1440-LL-MDD, 2022 WL 17345784, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (“If a nonparty 

serves timely objections to a subpoena duces tecum, the issuing part may obtain an order from the 

district court where compliance is required compelling production or inspection pursuant to Rule 

45(d)(2)(B)(i).”).

As there has been no response or opposition from Corcoran State Prison, the Court will 

grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED; and

2. Corcoran State Prison is required to produce all documents that identify, or that 

may reasonably help Plaintiff identify, the Doe ISU officer(s) involved in this 

incident. Corcoran State Prison shall file a notice of compliance with this order 

within thirty (30) days. 

3. If Corcoran State Prison believes there are no responsive documents, it shall file a 

response indicating what efforts were undertaken to search for the documents and 

facts supporting its assertion that no responsive documents exist.

4. The Court advises Plaintiff that he must file a motion to substitute named 

defendants in place of Doe ISU Officers 1-3 within forty-five (45) days. 

5. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order to the 

Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison as well as the Warden at Corcoran 

State Prison. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/08/23 Page 4 of 4