Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773-24/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 ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND (1) 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS, (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DIRECTING 

LIMITED-ISSUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

BE SET, AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL AT 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Docs. 105, 109, 119, and 137)

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 and California law on 

September 10, 2010. This action is 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 

rights under federal and state law. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his conditions of confinement at 

California State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and 

Recommendation addressing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion and 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 141 Filed 05/19/15 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

statute of limitations grounds and Plaintiff’s motion to strike, for sanctions, and for the 

appointment of counsel. After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on 

April 27, 2015. Local Rule 304(b). Defendants did not file a reply. Local Rule 304(d).

Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that he be denied counsel for the evidentiary 

hearing, and he objects to the recommendation that judgment be granted as to his claim arising 

from the retaliatory CDC-128-B chronos issued by Defendants Rousseau and Martinez. (Doc. 

137, F&Rs, 14:22-16:2 & 19:19-20:16.) Regarding counsel, this case does not present 

“exceptional circumstances” supporting a need for appointment of counsel to represent Plaintiff, 

either generally or with respect to the evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion for counsel be 

denied shall be adopted. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s retaliatory CDC 128-B chronos claim, exhaustion requires that 

Plaintiff’s inmate appeal place prison officials on “adequate notice” as to the conduct which gives

rise to his claim. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that the 

chrono placing him on property restriction status for covering his cell light and windows was false 

and was issued in retaliation against him for complaining on November 7, 2008. (Doc. 21, 

Amend. Comp., ¶43 & Ex. E.) This forms “the nature of the wrong for which redress is [now] 

sought.” Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Inmate appeal 

number COR-08-05161 provided no notice to prison officials that the CDC 128-B chrono was 

false and was issued in retaliation against Plaintiff for complaining. (Doc. 59-3, Motion to 

Dismiss, Ex. E.) Plaintiff’s argument that the claim is subsumed within the issues grieved in 

inmate appeal number COR-08-05137 and, is therefore exhausted, is unpersuasive. (Id., Ex. D.) 

That appeal was filed prior to the issuance of the allegedly retaliatory chrono, and it provides no 

notice that the CDC 128-B chrono dated November 10, 2008, was allegedly false and was issued 

in retaliation against Plaintiff for complaining. Therefore, the claim was not exhausted and the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation shall be adopted. 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 141 Filed 05/19/15 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 23, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike, filed on June 12, 2014, and motion for sanctions, set 

forth in his reply, are DENIED; 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

the available administrative remedies, filed on May 21, 2014, is GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the excessive force claim against 

Defendant Gray on the ground that the claim was exhausted;

b. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the denial of adequate clothing and 

linens while housed in a cold cell on the ground that the claim was 

exhausted;

c. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to the denial of adequate exercise on 

the ground that the claim was not exhausted;

d. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the retaliatory property deprivation 

claim on the ground that the claim was exhausted;

e. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to the issuance of retaliatory chronos 

on November 10, 2008, and June 22, 2009 on the ground that the claims 

were not exhausted;

f. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the allegedly retaliatory incidents 

which occurred on July 22, 2009, July 24, 2009, and September 30, 2009, 

on the ground that there are disputed factual issues requiring an evidentiary 

hearing; and

g. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to the state law claims on the ground 

that they are time barred under the Government Claims Act; 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 141 Filed 05/19/15 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. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel to represent him during the 

evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and

5. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 141 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4