Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01551-14/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

RANDY M. CORDERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICK GUZMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P

ORDER

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for an evidentiary hearing before the undersigned on 

September 14, 2015, regarding the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. On July 30, 

2015, plaintiff filed a pleading identifying his witnesses. (ECF No. 75.) To the extent this 

pleading includes a request for court assistance in obtaining the appearance of these witnesses at 

the evidentiary hearing, for the following reasons, this request is denied.

The evidentiary hearing will address the issue of whether plaintiff exhausted his 

administrative hearings as to his claims against defendant Parra. Plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Parra are set forth herein.

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleges that on March 5, 2015, plaintiff telephoned his 

attorney to discuss filing a civil suit against High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) and defendant 

Parra. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) While on the telephone, plaintiff became aware that defendant Parra 

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 08/05/15 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

was monitoring the call. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff also heard a distinct “click,” which meant that the 

call was being monitored by CDCR staff. (Id. at 7.)

On March 5, 2013, plaintiff was assaulted by inmates Valdivia and Trejo of the Two-Five 

gang. (Id.) Inmates Valdivia and Trejo later told plaintiff that they had conspired with defendant 

Parra to assault plaintiff. (Id.) They explained that defendant Parra told them that plaintiff was 

“dropping kites” on the Two-Five gang. (Id.) “Dropping kites” is prison slang for providing 

prison staff with information about the members of the gang. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 

defendant Parra conspired with inmates Valdivia and Trejo to assault him in retaliation for filing a 

staff complaint against defendant Guzman. (Id.) 

The April 20, 2015 findings and recommendations addressing defendants’ summary 

judgment motion discussed the issue of administrative exhaustion as set forth herein:

On March 10, 2013, plaintiff filed grievance 13-2073 raising his 

claims against defendant Parra. (ECF No. 57 at 75.) This 

grievance was processed as a staff complaint apparently based on 

plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Parra facilitated the attack by 

the other inmates on plaintiff. The first level response is unclear. 

(Id. at 81.) However, it appears to have been granted in part. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s appeal was accepted at the second level of review and 

also granted in part. (Id. at 82.) The second level response states

that on March 5, 2013, Sergeant Nadel conducted a videotaped 

interview with plaintiff. (Id.) The response describes plaintiff’s 

statements made during the interview. (Id.) The response further 

states that the following witnesses were questioned regarding the 

grievance: inmate Trejo, inmate Valdivia, Officer Uribe, Officer 

Trevino. (Id. at 87.) The response states that the following 

information was reviewed as a result of plaintiff’s allegations: 

plaintiff’s 602 and 602A, plaintiff’s disability and effective 

communication report, sign-in/out sheets for Facility 3B, and 

Incident Package 837 Log # COR 03B-13-03-0129. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s third level appeal of grievance 13-2073 was rejected at 

the third level of review because the appeal was missing the 837 

Crime Report. (Id. at 85.) 

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he submitted requests to 

prison staff for the CDCR 837 incident report but received no 

response. (ECF No. 60 at 40.) Plaintiff also argues that he, 

plaintiff, was not charged with a prison disciplinary for the 

altercation involving inmates Valdivia and Trejo. (ECF No. 60. at 

41.) Plaintiff argues that he would have received the CDCR 837 

incident report had he, plaintiff, been charged with a rules violation 

involving that incident. (Id.) 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 08/05/15 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

The undersigned is puzzled by the fact that grievance 13-2073 was 

considered on the merits at the second level of review, which 

included review of the 837 Crime Report, but rejected at the third 

level of review based on plaintiff’s failure to include the 837 Crime 

Report. Plaintiff’s statements in his opposition indicate that 

plaintiff did not possess a copy of the 837 Crime Report, suggesting 

that the second level reviewer independently obtained the 837 

Crime Report in order to evaluate plaintiff’s grievance. If the 

second level reviewer was able to obtain this report, then it is 

unclear why the third level reviewer could also not obtain this 

report, which was apparently not readily available to plaintiff. 

Without further explanation of these apparent discrepancies in 

review procedures between the second and third level of review, the 

undersigned cannot determine whether 13-2073 was properly 

rejected at the third level of review on procedural grounds. 

(ECF No. 65 at 13-14.)

On June 18, 2015, the Honorable John A. Mendez adopted the April 20, 2015 findings and 

recommendations, and ordered an evidentiary hearing as to whether plaintiff exhausted his 

administrative remedies with respect to his claims against defendant Parra. (ECF No. 71.) 

In his July 30, 2015 pleading, plaintiff lists the following witnesses for the evidentiary 

hearing: 1) inmate Gomez (cellmate); 2) inmate Valdivia; 3) inmate Trejo; 4) the two corrections 

officers working with defendant Parra on March 5, 2013; and 5) attorney William Schmidt. 

It is clear that plaintiff’s proposed witnesses would testify regarding the merits of 

plaintiff’s claim against defendant Parra. That is not the subject of the evidentiary hearing. The 

subject of the evidentiary hearing is only whether plaintiff administratively exhausted his claims 

against defendant Parra. As discussed in the April 20, 2015 findings and recommendations, the 

court cannot determine why plaintiff’s grievance, raising his claims against defendant Parra, was 

considered on the merits at the second level of review but rejected at the third level of review 

based on plaintiff’s failure to include the 837 Crime Report. This is the issue to be addressed at 

the evidentiary hearing. It does not appear that plaintiff’s proposed witnesses have any testimony 

to offer relevant to that issue. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for the court’s assistance in 

obtaining the appearance of these witnesses is denied.

In his July 30, 2015 pleading, plaintiff also states that he intends to file an amended 

complaint naming additional defendants. The undersigned will not address this issue because 

plaintiff did not file a proposed amended complaint and a motion for leave to amend.

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 08/05/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for court assistance in 

obtaining the appearance of witnesses for the evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 75) is denied.

Dated: August 5, 2015

Cor1551.ord(evi)

Case 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 4