Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02959/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02959-11/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

RUDY AROCHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. SAUCEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 11-cv-2959 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed September 6, 

2013. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

In the motion to compel, plaintiff requests that defendants provide him with information 

for service of defendants Hart, Munoz and Montanez. On June 11, 2013, the court ordered 

service of these defendants. (ECF No. 50.) On June 25, 2013, service as to defendants Munoz 

and Montanez was returned unexecuted because they could not be located in the “CDCR locator.” 

(ECF No. 53.) On August 7, 2013, service as to defendant Hart was returned unexecuted because 

“S. Hart named in the complaint identifies a female MTA who was promoted to Sergeant. This is 

clearly not S. Hart at DVI.” (ECF No. 63.)

////

////

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 10/22/13 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

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel on grounds that plaintiff’s letters 

addressed to defendants requesting information regarding the location of defendants do not 

comply with the requirements of a Request for Production of Documents under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure Rule 34. Defendants also object that the official information privilege bars 

plaintiff’s request for personnel information concerning employees of California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR). Defendants also contend that the information plaintiff 

seeks regarding defendants Munoz and Montanez does not exist, as demonstrated by a letter from 

the Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) Litigation Coordinator addressed to plaintiff. Attached to 

plaintiff’s motion to compel is a letter to plaintiff from the MCSP Litigation Coordinator dated 

August 8, 2013. (ECF No. 73 at 20.) This letter states that MCSP does not have a record of 

either employee, i.e., defendants Munoz and Montanez, who plaintiff was requesting information 

on. (Id.)

As for defendants Munoz and Montanez, it appears that defendants’ objection that the 

information sought does not exist is well taken. The returned USM-285 forms indicate that there 

is no record that either of these defendants is currently employed by CDCR. The letter from the 

MCSP Litigation Coordinator indicates that there is no record of either defendant ever being 

employed at MCSP. The court has reviewed the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint and finds no mention of either defendant Munoz or defendant Montanez in any of the 

responses to plaintiff’s administrative grievances prepared by prison officials. (See ECF Nos. 40-

1, 40-2, 40-3, 40-4.) 

Because plaintiff has apparently misidentified defendants Munoz and Montanez, as there 

is no record of their having ever been employed at MCSP where the claims allegedly occurred, 

plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide further information for service of these 

defendants is denied. 

As for defendant Hart, who is identified as a woman in the amended complaint, it is clear 

that this defendant exists as she is referenced in a response by prison officials to one of plaintiff’s 

administrative grievances. (ECF No. 40-1 at 85.) The U.S. Marshal has informed the court that 

MCSP prison officials informed the U.S. Marshal that defendant Hart had been transferred to 

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 10/22/13 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

Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”). For that reason, service was attempted on defendant Hart 

at DVI, although unsuccessfully.

Defendants’ objection that personnel information regarding CDCR employees, such as 

home addresses, should not be disclosed to inmates is well taken. However, it is not clear that 

defendant Hart is no longer employed by CDCR. In their letter responding to plaintiff’s request 

for information regarding defendants Munoz and Montanez, defendants stated that if they learned 

any information concerning the location of these defendants, they would forward the information 

to the U.S. Marshal.

Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall make an inquiry in order to 

determine if defendant Hart is currently employed by CDCR. If she is, defendants shall provide 

this information to the U.S. Marshal and the court. If defendant Hart is no longer employed by 

CDCR, defendants shall provide defendant Hart’s private address for service to the U.S. 

Marshal’s office only and notify the court that this has been done. The U.S. Marshal shall treat 

the information regarding defendant Hart’s private address as confidential. If defendants are 

unable to locate any information for service of defendant Hart, they shall notify the court within 

that time.

On September 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to submit his 

forms for service of defendants Munoz and Montanez. Because the court has denied plaintiff’s 

motion to compel seeking additional information for service of these defendants, plaintiff’s 

September 5, 2013 motion for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 70) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is denied as to his request for 

information regarding the locations of defendants Munoz and Montanez;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide additional information for 

service of defendant Hart (ECF No. 73) is granted; within thirty days of the 

date of this order, defendants shall conduct an inquiry regarding the location of 

defendant Hart and provide the information set forth above;

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 10/22/13 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

4. If defendants provide defendant Hart’s private address to the U.S. Marshal, 

the U.S. Marshal shall treat all information regarding defendant Hart’s 

private address as confidential; and 

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. 

Dated: October 22, 2013

ar2959.com

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 10/22/13 Page 4 of 4