Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JEREMY PINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; 

JESUS VALERO,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

 9:00 AM

 OCTOBER 15, 2015

 COURTROOM 6

 FRESNO

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The

matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendant Jesus Valero 

for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments and against Defendant Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for violation of the Privacy Act. 

In the operative pleading, Plaintiff claims that he and a number of other inmates, 

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 6
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

including Matthew Eyre,1are involved in an appeal in a lawsuit against high-ranking 

BOP officials in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

(“the D.C. Case”). The conduct giving rise to the action filed in this Court occurred at 

United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (“USP-Atwater”), a facility at which 

Plaintiff has never been housed. Plaintiff accuses Valero, then a Special Investigative 

Agent at USP-Atwater, of telling Eyre to cease participation in the D.C. Case, identifying 

Plaintiff as a "notorious snitch," and revealing "sensitive information" about Plaintiff from 

his BOP file. Plaintiff also accuses Valero of telling Eyre that several prison gangs would 

soon know that Eyre was "collaborating with rats." Plaintiff claims that, as a result of 

Valero's conduct, Eyre stopped participating in the D.C. Case, and Plaintiff is now 

targeted by prison gangs and has been assaulted.

On April 17, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment premised 

on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to 

Valero, (2) Valero is entitled to qualified immunity, and (3) Plaintiff fails to state a 

cognizable First Amendment claim. (ECF No. 58.)

Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 4, 2015 (ECF No. 59), and Defendants filed a

Reply. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff then filed a Sur-Reply (ECF No. 62), and Defendants filed 

a second Reply (ECF No. 62).

II. Dispute Regarding Authenticity Of Matthew Eyre’s Declaration

The parties have presented irreconcilably conflicting evidence from and about 

witness Eyre as follows:

A. In support of their motion, Defendants submit a declaration signed by Valero 

stating that he (1) had never heard of an inmate by the name of Jeremy Pinson; 

(2) was not aware of any lawsuit filed by Pinson; (3) never discussed Pinson or 

any lawsuits with Matthew Eyre; (4) never referred to Pinson as a notorious 

snitch; (5) never told Matthew Eyre that any gang members would soon know 

 

1

Eyre is scheduled to be released from the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas on October 

22, 2015 via Good Conduct Time. (Decl. of Matthew Eyre ¶ 1, ECF No. 60-1.)

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 6
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

that he was “collaborating with rats”; and (6) never disclosed any information, 

sensitive or otherwise, to Matthew Eyre, about Pinson from any Bureau of 

Prisons files.

B. In his Opposition, Plaintiff submits an undated declaration purportedly signed by 

Eyre (ECF No. 59 at 11), in which Eyre states:

 “...Valero ...showed me a Dec. 2008 letter wrote [sic] by AUSA Mike 

Schultz that revealed Pinson’s cooperation with law officers.”; 

 “...Valero said if I kept helping Pinson in the D.C. case fellow gang 

members would be told I was collaborating with notorious rats.”; 

 “I stopped participating in the D.C. case out of fear I would be labeled a 

snitch.”; and

 “Pinson has helped prepare this declaration but I will declare to its 

truthfulness.”

C. In their Reply, Defendants accuse Plaintiff of submitting a false, and impliedly 

forged, declaration in Eyre’s name. Defendants then submit a more recent Eyre 

declaration dated May 8, 2015, with a different signature than on the declaration 

submitted by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 60-1). In this declaration, Eyre states:

 “[The declaration submitted by Plaintiff] was not drafted by me. I never 

authorized Jeremy Pinson or anyone to draft such a declaration on my 

behalf. Furthermore, the signature at the bottom of the document is not 

mine.”

 “Jesus Valero...never discussed Jeremy Pinson with me while I was 

incarcerated at USP Atwater nor did [he] show me any documentation, 

sensitive or otherwise, indicating Jeremy Pinson ever cooperated with law 

enforcement. This is the first time I am ever hearing about any such 

records.”

 “The declaration alleges that I stopped participating in a D.C. case out of 

fear that Jesus Valero...would label me a snitch. This allegation is false. 

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Jesus Valero...never confronted me on any case involving Pinson.”

 “Moreover, I never wanted nor agreed to participate in a lawsuit pending in 

the District of Columbia. Jeremy Pinson listed me as an appellant, but I did 

not respond to the Court’s Order to join the case because I wanted 

nothing to do with it. My decision not to join the litigation had nothing to do 

with fear that Jesus Valero ... would label me a snitch if I did.”

 “...I never gave Jeremy Pinson permission to use my name in this lawsuit 

nor did I give him permission to draft a declaration on my behalf and to 

sign my name to it.”

D. In his Sur-Reply, Plaintiff submits a declaration signed by Kendra ChavoPerez, who states that she “handle[s] mail in legal or business matters” for 

Plaintiff; that she “personally sent to Mr. Eyre and received back from him with 

his signature the declaration which was forwarded to Mr. Pinson; and that she 

“did not personally see Mr. Eyre sign it however when it was sent to him for his 

signature it was mailed directly to him, and when it was returned to me it arrived 

in a prison envelope with Mr. Eyre’s return address.” (ECF No. 61.) Chavo-Perez 

does not include a copy of the envelope sent to Matthew Eyre or the envelope 

received back from him.

III. Analysis; Future Proceedings

Either Mr. Eyre has given inconsistent statements and he is being untruthful in at 

least one of them or one of his statements is forged. Resolution of the conflict will go to 

the very merits of this case and will produce severe sanctions if, as appears, there is 

knowing falsity here. Accordingly, before proceeding further, the Court will resolve the 

conflict as follows:

Unless Plaintiff elects to repudiate and withdraw the Eyre declaration that Plaintiff

submitted with his opposition, ECF No. 59 at 11, an evidentiary hearing will be held at 

9:00 AM, Friday, October 15, 2015, in Courtroom 6 of this Court. The Court will make 

arrangements for Plaintiff and witness Eyre to appear by video conference. If Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 6
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

wishes to have Kendra Chavo-Perez testify, it is his responsibility to notify her of the 

time, place and date of the hearing and arrange for her appearance at his or her own 

expense. A failure to have her present could lead to an inference that her testimony 

would not support the Plaintiff.

At the hearing, the Court will take evidence regarding the Eyre declarations, their 

manner of preparation, execution, mailing, return and submission, and determine which, 

if either, is valid. The Court also will consider whether sanctions should be imposed 

against any party or witness for misrepresentation to the Court, forgery, or other 

sanctionable conduct in connection with the foregoing. 

In this regard, federal courts have broad powers to impose sanctions against 

parties or counsel for improper conduct in litigation. The Court derives the power to 

impose sanctions on parties or their counsel from three primary sources of authority, 

“(1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to signed writings filed with the 

court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and 

vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the court's inherent power.” Fink v. 

Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 11(c)(3), the Court may, on its 

own motion, order a hearing to show cause why conduct by a party has not violated 

Rule 11.

Presenting fraudulent declarations to the court is a serious offense. If the court 

finds that a party has submitted a fraudulent document, the court may dismiss the case. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Similarly, any party presenting an 

affidavit or declaration in bad faith may be guilty of contempt and ordered to pay the 

opposing party's attorney fees and expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(h). Indeed, such 

misconduct may trigger severe criminal penalties for either a party or a witness. See 18 

USC § 1623 (a person who makes a knowingly false material declaration to a court is 

subject to a fine, five years in prison or both).

In light of the dispute concerning the authenticity of the declaration submitted by 

Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 6
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

1. An evidentiary hearing shall be convened on October 15, 2015,at 9:00 

a.m. in Courtroom 6, Fresno, before the undersigned; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall fax a copy of this Order to the Litigation 

Coordinator at Florence High United States Penitentiary in Florence, 

Colorado, where Plaintiff is presently housed; and, 

3. The parties may submit briefs on the issues presented provided they are 

received by the Court at least ten days before the date of the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 70 Filed 08/18/15 Page 6 of 6