Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00662-15/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 

LARRY GIRALDES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

K.M. PORTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-662-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER AFTER HEARING ON PARTIES’ 

DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 20, 2014, this action was on calendar for hearing on plaintiff’s motion 

to compel, plaintiff’s motion to supplement his motion to compel, defendants’ motion to compel 

plaintiff’s deposition, and defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff appeared 

in pro per by way of telephone. Deputy Attorney General Debra A. Fitzsimmons appeared on 

behalf of defendants. As stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED1

 that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is granted as to: 

a. RFP Nos. 13 & 14 (letters), directed to defendant Virga, in that defendant is 

ordered to conduct a diligent search for responsive documents, file a 

declaration detailing the steps taken to conduct that search, and supplement 

the responses if the search produces additional documents. 

 1

 Although defense counsel was instructed at the hearing to prepare and submit a proposed 

summary order, the court has subsequently decided to prepare its own order. 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 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

b. RFP Nos. 1 & 2 (policies regarding civilian and inmate complaints), directed 

to defendant Virga, in that defendant is ordered to (i) provide or make 

available to plaintiff the regulations or portions of the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Operations Manual that describe 

the policies regarding civilian complaints against CDCR employees or the 

policies regarding inmates who complain about retaliation, and (ii) produce 

any other responsive documents, if they exist. 

c. RFP Nos. 4, 5, & 6 (plaintiff’s administrative appeals), directed to defendant 

Virga, to the extent that defendant shall file a declaration detailing the steps 

taken to ensure that plaintiff receives the opportunity to review and obtain 

copies from his central file of the administrative appeals pertaining to the 

issues raised in this lawsuit. 

d. RFP No. 6 (plaintiff’s housing log), directed to defendant Porter, in that 

defendant is ordered to conduct a diligent search for the missing page relating 

to the dates of April 29, 2012 through May 10, 2012, file a declaration 

detailing the steps taken to conduct that search, and supplement the response if 

the search produces the missing page. 

e. RFP No. 8 (cell search receipts), directed to defendant Porter, in that 

defendant is ordered to conduct a diligent search for responsive documents, 

file a declaration detailing the steps taken to conduct that search, and 

supplement the response if the search produces additional documents. 

f. RFA Nos. 1-5 & 8, directed to defendant Virga, in that defendant shall admit 

or deny the requests for admissions. 

g. RFA Nos. 25, 26, & 29, directed to defendant O’Brien, in that defendant shall 

admit or deny the requests for admissions. 

Defendants shall, no later than September 17, 2014, file a declaration with the court that provides 

the information specifically requested above and also describes the outcomes of the searches and 

inquiries requested above. The declaration shall also confirm that defendants have supplemented 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 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

their discovery responses in accordance with this order. In all other respects, plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his motion to compel (ECF No. 52) is denied. At the 

hearing plaintiff argued that the motion was not duplicative of his original motion to 

compel. However, it was unclear what specific discovery request(s) and response(s) 

he was addressing apart from what had already been addressed. Therefore, the 

motion to supplement his motion to compel is denied without prejudice to the filing 

of a motion that specifically identifies discovery request(s) and/or response(s) that 

have not already been adjudicated by the court. 

3. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition (ECF No. 39) is granted and 

defendants shall be permitted to depose plaintiff. 

4. Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule (ECF No. 40) is granted, and the court 

sets the following scheduling deadlines: 

a. The discovery deadline is extended to November 18, 2014 for the limited 

purposes of allowing (i) defendants to depose plaintiff, (ii) for defendants’ 

compliance with this ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel, and (iii) for the 

filing of any motion pursuant to paragraph 2 above. 

b. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before January 20, 2015. 

5. Finally, because of the confusion among the parties as to the claims that are before the 

court, which has led to relevancy disputes raised in the instant motions, the court 

hereby clarifies the individual retaliation claims alleged in the amended complaint 

(ECF No. 11) that are proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The screened 

complaint include claims that: 

a. Defendant DALY retaliated against plaintiff for filing appeals (in an attempt 

to protect his co-workers) by improperly screening out plaintiff’s complaints 

as untimely, as duplicative, or for missing required documentation. 

b. Plaintiff filed an appeal requesting access to cable television. On or around 

November 11, 2010, plaintiff told defendant O’BRIEN that he intended to file 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 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

a lawsuit following the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. O’BRIEN 

threatened to confiscate plaintiff’s personal property if he filed suit. 

c. O’BRIEN again retaliated against plaintiff for having filed two § 1983 

lawsuits and for filing appeals by imposing an unlawful punishment after 

finding plaintiff guilty of possession of contraband. 

d. On July 28, 2011, O’BRIEN told plaintiff that if he did not stop appealing 

staff misconduct he would let defendant PORTER “break [plaintiff] down” to 

the absolute minimum property allowed. An officer subsequently took away 

plaintiff’s hot-pot and fan. When plaintiff continued to file appeals, a false 

RVR was issued claiming that plaintiff’s radio was missing and plaintiff was 

improperly ordered to send some of his property home. When plaintiff 

complained about this, defendants TILL, PORTER, and O’BRIEN conducted 

a retaliatory cell search and destroyed evidence that plaintiff had compiled. 

PORTER conducted a second retaliatory cell search on October 11, 2011 and 

wrongly confiscated plaintiff’s batteries. 

e. On or around July 5, 2012, O’BRIEN further retaliated against plaintiff by 

having him transferred to Mule Creek State Prison. 

f. On or around November 13, 2010, defendant PERRY told plaintiff that he 

would be issued a rules violation report if he ever mentioned filing suit against 

a prison employee. After learning that plaintiff had documented this threat, 

PERRY searched plaintiff’s cell and confiscated wires plaintiff had been using 

to access a few cable channels. PERRY told plaintiff that he took the wires 

because of the notes that plaintiff had taken. 

g. On or around February 27, 2011, defendant PORTER ordered that plaintiff be 

strip-searched every time he asked to use the phone, in retaliation for 

plaintiff’s complaint to a lieutenant that she had wrongfully taken away 

plaintiff’s phone privileges. 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 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

h. In retaliation for filing appeals, defendant PORTER falsely claimed that 

plaintiff had refused to accept a special order he had placed for a typewriter, 

costing him almost $300 in restocking fees. 

i. On July 30, 2011, defendants TILL and PORTER told plaintiff that if he did 

not drop his appeal against PORTER, they would have inmates on the yard 

“deal with [plaintiff’s] ass.” They also told other inmates that if they did not 

get plaintiff to drop the appeal, the inmates would be stripped to the bare 

minimum property. 

j. On May 14, 2011, defendant SKOGIN told other inmates that “bad shit” 

would happen to the music program if someone did not stop making plaintiff 

file appeals. TILL and SKOGIN then confiscated plaintiff’s guitar. After 

plaintiff continued to file appeals, SKOGIN threatened to take away plaintiffs’ 

weekend yard time. 

k. Defendant HUTCHINGS conducted a series of retaliatory cell searches where 

he improperly applied mechanical restraints to plaintiff, confiscated allowable 

personal property (including legal supplies and a typewriter ribbon), wrote 

false rules violation reports (for possession of alpha-index spacers and other 

office supplies), and took legal mail and evidence that plaintiff had 

accumulated against other defendants. When plaintiff threatened to file 

another appeal, HUTCHINGS demanded that plaintiff turn over his personal 

shorts, claiming they were altered. 

l. Defendant TODD threatened to confiscate more of plaintiff’s property if 

plaintiff did not withdraw an appeal and found plaintiff guilty of at least two 

rules violation reports (one regarding possession of office supplies, the other 

regarding possession of a hot-pot) just to retaliate against plaintiff. 

m. Plaintiff and his family members complained about the retaliation (and 

interference with administrative appeals) to defendant warden VIRGA. 

VIRGA denied wrongdoing by his staff, denied any problems with the mail, 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 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

and failed to take any corrective action. VIRGA also allowed for the appeals 

process to be obstructed thinking it would prevent his staff from having to 

answer for their actions. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-00662-KJM-EFB Document 63 Filed 08/22/14 Page 6 of 6