Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444-9/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

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER ADDRESING PLAINTIFF’S 

FILINGS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES 

TECUM, AND REQUIRING APPEARANCE 

OF BYNUM AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Docs. 65 and 66)

There is an evidentiary hearing set for February 12, 2014, to resolve an issue material to 

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b). Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of 

documents concerning the number of appeals, complaints, and staff misconduct complaints filed 

against Kern Valley State Prison appeal office staff regarding screened out, rejected, lost, missing, 

and/or unanswered appeals; inquiries and investigations on those matters; and 2010 MAC (Men’s 

Advisory Committee) minutes from meetings in which those matters were discussed. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 45. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff also seeks the appearance of Counselor Bynum and appeals staff 

members DaVeiga, Tarnoff, and/or Lane at the evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 65, 66.)

Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is denied. The briefing on 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust is complete and no further briefing is 

permitted. Furthermore, the evidentiary hearing set for February 12, 2014, is limited to a narrow 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 70 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 2
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

witness credibility issue concerning whether Plaintiff did or did not submit an inmate appeal 

grieving the facts underlying his claim in this action. Inquiry into the adequacy or inadequacy of 

the inmate appeals process and/or other problems faced by inmates is irrelevant.

With respect to Counselor Bynum, Plaintiff represents that Ms. Bynum was the counselor 

assigned to building C3 and Ms. Scott filled in for her when she was on vacation. (Doc. 65.) 

Plaintiff also represents that he believes Ms. Bynum is counselor who made phone calls to the 

appeals office. (Doc. 66.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is incorrect that the Court’s order required both Bynum and 

Scott to appear at the hearing. The Court ordered Defendants to arrange for the presence of the 

counselor assigned to the building in October 2010. The presence of Ms. Scott on the witness list 

would suggest that she was the counselor assigned to the building in October 2010. However, 

because it appears a dispute may arise at the hearing over which of the two counselors made the 

phone calls, Defendants shall arrange for the presence of both Ms. Bynum and Ms. Scott. 

With respect to appeals staff, Defendants need only arrange for the participation of 

witnesses with the requisite personal knowledge of the appeals process at the institutional level 

and at the Director’s level. (Doc. 60.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request that the Court require the 

appearance of specific appeals staff members from the prison is denied. 

In light of this order, there is no further need for the parties to meet and confer regarding 

witnesses.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Ms. Bynum to appear at 

the evidentiary hearing is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motions are otherwise DENIED. (Docs. 65, 

66.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 70 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 2