Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773-25/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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01773-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ISSUANCE OF BLANK SUBPOENAS

AND SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Docs. 141 and 142)

Meet & Confer Deadline: September 24, 2015

Joint Witness & Exhibit Lists Due: October 8, 2015

Exhibits Due: October 8, 2015

Hearing: October 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 

(SKO)

Plaintiff Andrew R. Lopez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2010. This 

action is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on March 23, 2012, against 

Defendants Garcia, Zamora, Espinosa, Jackson, Drew, Olmedo, Munoz, Fields, White, Rousseau, 

Martinez, Beer, Gray, Beard, and Gipson (“Defendants”) for violating Plaintiff’s federal 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his conditions of confinement at California 

State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California in 2008 and 2009. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust was resolved in full with 

the exception of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Garcia and 

Beer arising out of incidents alleged to have occurred on July 22, 2009, July 24, 2009, and 

September 30, 2009. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). With respect to those claims, 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 143 Filed 07/24/15 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 Court determined that there are disputed factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2015); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). 

Thereafter, on June 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of five blank 

subpoenas ad testificandum, in anticipation of the evidentiary hearing. Defendants did not file a 

response. Local Rule 230(l). By this order, the Court shall schedule the evidentiary hearing, with 

notice to the parties regarding the parameters. In light of the requirement that the parties meet and 

confer over joint exhibit and witness lists, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of blank subpoenas 

shall be denied.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of blank subpoenas, filed on June 11, 2015, is 

DENIED;

2. An evidentiary hearing is SET before the undersigned to decide the disputed issues 

of fact relating to the exhaustion of Plaintiff’s three retaliation claims;

3. The hearing will be held on October 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7, Sixth 

Floor, United States District Court, Fresno, California; it will commence and be 

completed that day; and it will be limited to the issue of whether Plaintiff is 

excused from the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement because 

the administrative remedies were “effectively unavailable;”

4. The parties should be prepared to present evidence as to the following: 

a. Whether Plaintiff properly filed appeals grieving the events of July 22, 

2009, July 24, 2009, and September 30, 2009, in compliance with the 

applicable procedural rules; and

b. If so, whether the administrative remedy process was rendered unavailable 

through the loss or theft of his properly submitted appeals;

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 143 Filed 07/24/15 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

5. In preparation for the hearing, no later than September 24, 2015, the parties 

SHALL meet and confer, by telephone or in person, regarding the witnesses to be 

called and evidence to be presented at the hearing;

1

6. No later than October 8, 2015, defense counsel SHALL file a statement setting 

forth the witnesses to be called and the documents to be presented at the hearing; 

and

7. Defense counsel SHALL provide four (4) copies of all exhibits to be used at the 

hearing to Judge Oberto’s chambers no later than October 8, 2015.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Witnesses are limited to those qualified to provide relevant testimony on the exhaustion issues identified herein. 

Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 701, 702.

2 One for the witness stand, one for the judge, and two for court staff.

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 143 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3