Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC HEARING

ON NOVEMBER 16, 2023, AT 2:00 P.M

REGARDING THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 

26, 2023, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND 

A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO SUPERVISING 

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

LAWRENCE BRAGG, THE WARDEN OF 

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, AND THE 

LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT

CORCORAN STATE PRISON

On September 26, 2023, the Court issued an order for the Warden of Corcoran State 

Prison to show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with a court 

order. (ECF No. 28). The Court has received a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 

29). The Court will hold a telephonic hearing on this matter on November 16, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Cesario Vizcarra Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on June 22, 2022, 

generally alleging that unidentified officers from the Investigative Services Unit (“ISU”) used 

excessive force against Plaintiff during the process of removing Plaintiff from his housing unit so 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 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

that Plaintiff could be interviewed by the ISU. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the use of force 

caused a break in Plaintiff’s healed arm, which had previously been surgically repaired. The 

Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims of excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment against the Doe ISU Officers responsible for breaking 

Plaintiff’s arm. (ECF No. 6).1

On October 17, 2022, following Plaintiff’s notice that he wished to proceed on the claims 

found cognizable in the Court’s screening order, the Court issued an order authorizing the 

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum so that Plaintiff could seek document(s) that identify the Doe 

Defendant(s). (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).

Plaintiff completed and submitted the subpoena and necessary form. (ECF Nos. 11 & 14).

On December 1, 2022, the Court approved Plaintiff’s requested subpoena, and directed service of 

the subpoena on the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison by the United States 

Marshals Service. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff’s subpoena sought the following documents: “114d 

Lock up order, Investigation Package, 1040 Form, Body inspection log, all reports regarding 

rehousing, Sgt. Case’s report, names of ISU officers who restrained Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 15-1, p. 

1). The Court directed the Litigation Coordinator to respond to the subpoena within twenty-one 

days. (ECF No. 15, p. 2). However, the Litigation Coordinator was “only required to produce 

documents that identify, or may reasonably help Plaintiff identify, the Doe ISU officer(s) 

involved in this incident.” (Id.)

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

documents to identify the Doe defendants. (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 1-3 to April 10, 2023. (ECF No. 17). The United States Marshals 

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

On March 25, 2023, the Litigation Coordinator e-mailed the Court an affidavit of no 

1 The Court separately issued findings and recommendations recommending that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 9). On June 1, 2023, the district judge issued an order adopting the Court’s findings and 

recommendations and dismissing all claims and defendants “except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claims against Doe ISU Officer1-3.” (ECF No. 23).

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 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

records.

On April 26, 2023, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff 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.)

In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

Corcoran State Prison’s response to the March 7, 2023, subpoena. (ECF No. 22). The Court set a 

deadline for “[a]ny response or opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel.” (ECF No. 24). The 

Court did not a receive a response or opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

On August 8, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 25). As the 

Court stated, 

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, 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).”).

(Id., pp. 3-4). The Court compelled production of “all documents that identify, or that may 

reasonably help Plaintiff identify, the DOE ISU officer(s) involved in this incident” or “a 

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

supporting its assertion that no responsive documents exist.” (Id., p. 4). 

The Court did not receive a notice of compliance from Corcoran State Prison or a 

response within the provided deadline. Accordingly, the Court issued an order for the Warden of 

Corcoran State Prison to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with a 

court order. (ECF No. 28). 

The Warden has now responded. (ECF No. 29). The Warden concedes the prison did not 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 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

file a response to the motion to compel. (Id., p. 3). The Warden also concedes that it did not file a 

response to the order granting the motion to compel despite the Court setting a deadline for 

response. (Id.) The Warden filed a response only after the Court issued an order to show cause 

why sanctions should not issue and sent a copy of that order to a senior assistant deputy attorney 

general. 

The Warden’s response includes documents not previously identified or produced. (Id., 

pp. 14-26). Among these documents are a CDCR form 114-D Administrative Segregation Unit 

Placement Notice regarding Plaintiff’s ASU placement, (id., pp. 17-21), and a Classification 

Committee Chrono regarding Plaintiff’s release from the ASU, (id., pp. 24-16). Additionally, the 

Warden includes a copy of a CDCR 1030 Confidential Information Disclosure Form related to 

the ISU investigation. (Id., pp. 22-23). According to the Litigation Coordinator’s supporting 

declaration, 

[The CDCR 1030 Form] [ ] notes that confidential information was placed in Mr. 

Medina’s file. This form was not provided earlier due to the form being dated 

November 9, 2023 for the October 8th, Investigation. Per CCR Title 15, Section 

3321, CDCR 1030 Confidential Information Disclosure Forms need to be 

completed and provided to the inmate within twenty-four hours of placement of 

confidential information in an inmates’ central file, thus resulting in a failure to 

properly identify the request form. 

(Id., p. 9). 

The Warden’s response also includes a confidential report regarding the search of 

Plaintiff’s cell performed by ISU and his placement into administrative segregation on October 8, 

2020. (Id., pp. 14-16). However, this report is heavily redacted. The Litigation Coordinator 

asserts that “a redacted copy of this report has been provided to Mr. Medina which identifies the 

ISU officer involved in the cell search.” (Id., p. 9). Yet, the redacted portion produced to the 

Court does not explicitly identify any person who conducted the search or transported Plaintiff 

from his cell on October 8, 2020: 

Investigation 

On Thursday October 8, 2020, LADA Investigator Flannagan contacted ISU 

[redacted] ISU immediately conducted a search of inmate Medina (3B05-148) cell 

with negative results for a cellular phone or anything with victim’s information. 

Inmate Medina was subsequently placed in Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg) 

pending investigation. [Redacted].

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 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

Conclusion 

[Redacted]. Inmate Medina will continue to be monitored. . . 

(Id., pp. 14-15). The Warden further provides that: 

The Litigation Coordinator is in the process of searching for other documents 

referencing the October 8, 2020 cell search, and will provide copies of any 

documents located to the Plaintiff, redacted appropriately. (Id.). However, in the 

absence of a reportable incident, the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation does not maintain records documenting which officer(s) escort an 

inmate inside a prison. (Id. at 3:16-22.) 

(Id., p. 4). 

The Warden has asked that no sanctions issue because, despite not responding to the 

Court’s orders, there was no bad faith. The Warden also argues that Plaintiff has not incurred any 

costs or otherwise been prejudiced. However, again, the CDCR has not produced any documents 

identifying the Doe defendant(s) described by Plaintiff. 

The Court notes the pressing nature of resolving this issue. The documents are being 

sought to identify the Doe ISU Officer(s) who was involved in the incident of alleged force 

described in Plaintiff’s complaint so that service may issue, and this case proceed. Without such 

information, Plaintiff will not be able to substitute a defendant and Plaintiff’s case, which has 

been pending over a year, will likely be dismissed. The current deadline for Plaintiff to file a 

motion to substitute named defendants in place of Doe ISU Officers 1-3 is November 27, 2023. 

(See ECF No. 28, p. 2-3). The Court has already extended this deadline several times. (See ECF 

Nos. 17, 24, 25). It cannot continue to do so indefinitely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“[I]f the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to serve the defendant], the court must extend service 

for an appropriate period.”). 

II. ORDER

1. The Court sets a telephonic hearing on November 16, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 

10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.2 For telephonic participation, each 

party is directed to use the following dial-in number and passcode: Dial-in number 1-888-

251-2909; Passcode 1024453. 

\\\ 

2 The Court will issue a separate order and writ of habeas corpus to Plaintiff’s current institution of confinement. 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 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

2. Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General Lawrence Bragg, the Warden of Corcoran State Prison, and the 

Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2023 /s/

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/18/23 Page 6 of 6