Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WHEELER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALICESON, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

COURT ORDERS AND SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 98)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The action 

proceeds against Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference and state law negligence claims. 

On June 3, 2015, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 

43), and ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff with chronos authored by Defendant 

Isira in 2011, or to provide those chronos for in camera review within thirty days. (ECF 

No. 84.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 31, 2015 motion for court orders and sanctions 

in relation to Defendants’ alleged failure to fully comply with the June 3, 2015 order. 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 104 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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

(ECF No. 98.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The 

matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff currently is housed at Mule Creek State Prison but complains of acts that 

occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, 

California. The relevant allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint may be 

summarized essentially as follows:

Plaintiff suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress, and anxiety.

From June 7, 2010 to January 19, 2011 and from March 24, 2011 to June 15, 

2011, he was housed in the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) portion of Facility G1. On January 19, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another inmate, 

resulting in the use of force against Plaintiff by correctional officers and Plaintiff’s 

placement in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff filed administrative grievances 

regarding this incident and other conduct by Facility G-1 staff. 

During May and June of 2011, Plaintiff observed staff misconduct on the part of 

Defendants, including improper utilization of computer resources. Plaintiff wrote a letter 

to the Warden detailing violations of CDCR standards. 

Defendants Garcia, Goss, and Trevino retaliated against Plaintiff for his 

administrative grievances and letter to the Warden. They made false entries in his file 

and chronos. Plaintiff also was transferred to non-EOP housing in an overcrowded gym 

where his mental health condition could not be effectively treated or accommodated. 

Garcia falsely accused Plaintiff of overfamiliarity, stalking females, and threatening 

behavior. These accusations led to a rules violation proceeding in which Plaintiff was 

found not guilty. Plaintiff claims Defendant Coffin was aware of this retaliation and failed 

to protect Plaintiff.

Defendant Isira, in concert with the other Defendants, also retaliated against 

Plaintiff by intentionally falsifying medical records, misdiagnosing Plaintiff as not 

suffering from a substantiated mental health disorder, providing unacceptable mental 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 104 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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

health care, and terminating Plaintiff’s EOP level of care, resulting in Plaintiff being 

housed in the gym.

Four months later, Plaintiff was examined by a non-party mental health provider 

who correctly diagnosed his mental health conditions and transferred Plaintiff back to 

the EOP level of care.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiff’s motion to compel sought various 

documents and chronos authored by Defendant Isira. (ECF No. 43.) According to 

Plaintiff, these documents were necessary to show that a particular chrono relevant to 

this case had been altered.

The Court ruled as follows:

The Court is unable to discern the basis for Plaintiff’s belief 

that Defendant Isira altered chronos. Nevertheless, the Court 

agrees with Plaintiff that chronos authored by Defendant 

Isira in 2011 would appear to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Alterations or edits to the 2011 chronos, even after the date 

of the alleged retaliation, also could potentially be relevant. 

Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to conduct a diligent 

search of their records and to provide Plaintiff with copies of 

any and all chronos concerning Plaintiff and authored by 

Defendant Isira in 2011, including any later-edited or altered 

versions of those same chronos. Defendants shall file a 

notice of compliance in the record. To the extent Defendants 

believe any such chronos are too sensitive to be released to 

Plaintiff, they may seek relief from this order by filing the 

chronos for in camera review. 

(ECF No. 84.)

Defendants filed a notice of compliance with the Court’s order on July 3, 2015. 

(ECF No. 91.) Defendants state that they produced “all available versions of all chronos 

concerning Plaintiff authored by Defendant Isira in Defendants’ possession, custody or 

control.”

IV. MOTION FOR COURT ORDERS AND SANCTION

In the instant motion, Plaintiff claims that the Court ordered Defendants to 

produce copies of chronos from “servers, proxy servers, off site servers, storage, ‘M.H. 

share files,’ computers, printers, and faxes.” (ECF No. 98 at 1.) He claims that 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 104 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants failed to produce documents that were deleted or altered. He asserts that 

Defendants were required to have “computer specialists” retrieve the deleted files but 

did not do so. 

Plaintiff’s claims regarding altered or deleted chronos appear to be based on the 

following allegations: On October 25, 2012, L. Maravilla, a prison social worker, showed 

Plaintiff two 128C chronos authored by Defendant Isira that were located in the prison’s 

mental health share files. The chronos were dated July 26, 2011 and November 4, 

2011. In November or December of 2012, Plaintiff wrote to medical records staff to 

inquire after these chronos, and was told they were not in his file. Medical records staff 

contacted Defendant Isira on December 4, 2012, following which Defendant Isira faxed 

over two 128B chronos for these dates. According to Plaintiff, the November 4, 2011 

chrono had been altered. Additionally, when Plaintiff thereafter viewed his file, the 128B 

chronos were in it; the 128C chronos he previously had seen were not.

Defendants respond that they diligently searched their records as required by the 

Court’s order, and produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody or 

control. According to Defendants, at the time relevant to Plaintiff’s complaint, chronos 

were typed on an individual’s computer, then saved to the “Mental Health Shared 

Drive.” A copy also was placed in the inmate’s Unit Health Record. 

The actual computer used by Defendant Isira at the time at issue has been 

replaced and is no longer in the possession of CDCR. On June 30, 2015, L. Maravilla 

searched the Mental Health Shared Drive at Defendants’ request, and found only two 

chronos (July 22, 2011 and November 4, 2011) authored by Defendant Isira. 

Defendants also sought the assistance of a Senior Information Systems Analyst, who 

concluded that the July 26, 2011 chrono last was modified on October 26, 2011, and the 

November 4, 2011 chrono last was modified on November 9, 2011. The chronos 

located on the Mental Health Shared Drive are identical to those that were faxed to 

medical records staff on December 4, 2012.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 104 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 5
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

V. DISCUSSION

Based on the information provided, the Court concludes that Defendants have 

fully complied with the Court’s June 3, 2015 order. Defendants make a diligent search of 

the records in their possession, custody, or control, and produced the responsive 

documents to Plaintiff. No further response is required.

Documents submitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants cast doubt on Plaintiff’s 

claim that the chronos were altered. Regardless, however, Defendants cannot be 

required to produce documents not in their possession, custody, or control. 

Furthermore, the Court is unable to discern the import of the purported alterations to this 

action. Plaintiff has not explained the difference between the chronos he allegedly 

viewed on October 25, 2012, and those he viewed on December 4, 2012. Nor has he 

explained how any such alterations bear on any fact of consequence regarding the 

alleged retaliation, medical indifference, and negligence claims. Accordingly, no further 

discovery on this issue will be permitted absent leave of Court for good cause shown 

based on information not presently known to or available to Plaintiff.

VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for court orders and for sanctions is 

HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 104 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 5