Opinion
1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC)
09-25-2023
CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.
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
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MONICA N. ANDERSON, THE WARDEN OF CORCORAN STATE PRISON, AND THE LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT CORCORAN STATE PRISON
ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE NAMED DEFENDANTS IN PLACE OF DOE ISU OFFICERS 1-3
Cesario Vizcarra Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9).
On August 8, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel Corcoran State Prison's response to Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum requesting documents identifying Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF No. 25). The order 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, Case 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).”). As there has been no response or opposition from Corcoran State Prison, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to compel.(Id., pp. 3-4). The Court ordered Corcoran State Prison “to produce all documents that identify, or that may reasonably help Plaintiff identify, the Doe ISU officer(s) involved in this incident” and to file a notice of compliance within thirty days. (Id., p. 4). The Court also ordered Corcoran State Prison to “file a response indicating what efforts were undertaken to search for the documents and facts supporting its assertion that no responsive documents exist” if Corcoran State Prison believes that there are no responsive documents to Plaintiff's subpoena. (Id.) A copy of the Court's order was sent to both the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison and the Warden of Corcoran State Prison.
To date, Corcoran State Prison has not filed a notice of compliance or a response indicating that no responsive could be found and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly, the Court will order the Warden of Corcoran State Prison to show written cause why he or she should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Court's order.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Warden of Corcoran State Prison shall show cause why sanctions should not issue for the Warden's failure to comply with the Court's August 8, 2023, order requiring Corcoran State Prison to either file a notice of compliance or response within the applicable deadline. The Warden shall file a written response explaining why he or she failed to follow the Court's order by no later than October 25, 2023.
2. In light of the fact that the Court has not received any indication as to whether Plaintiff has or has not been provided with documents that identify the names of the Doe ISU Officers described in Plaintiff's complaint, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion substituting named defendants in place of
Doe ISU Officers 1-3. Plaintiff shall file such a motion within sixty days of this order.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Monica N. Anderson, the Warden of Corcoran State Prison, and the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison.
IT IS SO ORDERED.