Arocha v. Sauceda et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/22/2013 DENYING 70 Motion for Extension of Time; DENYING 73 Motion to Compel as to the request for information regarding the locations of Defendants Munoz and Montanez; GRANTING 73 Motion to Compel Defendants to provide additional information for service of Defendant Hart; ORDERING the defendants to conduct an inquiry regarding the location of Defendant Hart and to provide the information set forth within thirty (30) days; DIRECTING the U.S. Marshal to treat all information regarding Defendant Hart's private address as confidential. (cc: USM) (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY AROCHA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2: 11-cv-2959 KJN P v. ORDER E. SAUCEDA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 17 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed September 6, 19 2013. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. In the motion to compel, plaintiff requests that defendants provide him with information 20 21 for service of defendants Hart, Munoz and Montanez. On June 11, 2013, the court ordered 22 service of these defendants. (ECF No. 50.) On June 25, 2013, service as to defendants Munoz 23 and Montanez was returned unexecuted because they could not be located in the “CDCR locator.” 24 (ECF No. 53.) On August 7, 2013, service as to defendant Hart was returned unexecuted because 25 “S. Hart named in the complaint identifies a female MTA who was promoted to Sergeant. This is 26 clearly not S. Hart at DVI.” (ECF No. 63.) 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel on grounds that plaintiff’s letters 2 addressed to defendants requesting information regarding the location of defendants do not 3 comply with the requirements of a Request for Production of Documents under Federal Rule of 4 Civil Procedure Rule 34. Defendants also object that the official information privilege bars 5 plaintiff’s request for personnel information concerning employees of California Department of 6 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR). Defendants also contend that the information plaintiff 7 seeks regarding defendants Munoz and Montanez does not exist, as demonstrated by a letter from 8 the Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) Litigation Coordinator addressed to plaintiff. Attached to 9 plaintiff’s motion to compel is a letter to plaintiff from the MCSP Litigation Coordinator dated 10 August 8, 2013. (ECF No. 73 at 20.) This letter states that MCSP does not have a record of 11 either employee, i.e., defendants Munoz and Montanez, who plaintiff was requesting information 12 on. (Id.) 13 As for defendants Munoz and Montanez, it appears that defendants’ objection that the 14 information sought does not exist is well taken. The returned USM-285 forms indicate that there 15 is no record that either of these defendants is currently employed by CDCR. The letter from the 16 MCSP Litigation Coordinator indicates that there is no record of either defendant ever being 17 employed at MCSP. The court has reviewed the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s third amended 18 complaint and finds no mention of either defendant Munoz or defendant Montanez in any of the 19 responses to plaintiff’s administrative grievances prepared by prison officials. (See ECF Nos. 40- 20 1, 40-2, 40-3, 40-4.) 21 Because plaintiff has apparently misidentified defendants Munoz and Montanez, as there 22 is no record of their having ever been employed at MCSP where the claims allegedly occurred, 23 plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide further information for service of these 24 defendants is denied. 25 As for defendant Hart, who is identified as a woman in the amended complaint, it is clear 26 that this defendant exists as she is referenced in a response by prison officials to one of plaintiff’s 27 administrative grievances. (ECF No. 40-1 at 85.) The U.S. Marshal has informed the court that 28 MCSP prison officials informed the U.S. Marshal that defendant Hart had been transferred to 2 1 Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”). For that reason, service was attempted on defendant Hart 2 at DVI, although unsuccessfully. 3 Defendants’ objection that personnel information regarding CDCR employees, such as 4 home addresses, should not be disclosed to inmates is well taken. However, it is not clear that 5 defendant Hart is no longer employed by CDCR. In their letter responding to plaintiff’s request 6 for information regarding defendants Munoz and Montanez, defendants stated that if they learned 7 any information concerning the location of these defendants, they would forward the information 8 to the U.S. Marshal. 9 Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall make an inquiry in order to 10 determine if defendant Hart is currently employed by CDCR. If she is, defendants shall provide 11 this information to the U.S. Marshal and the court. If defendant Hart is no longer employed by 12 CDCR, defendants shall provide defendant Hart’s private address for service to the U.S. 13 Marshal’s office only and notify the court that this has been done. The U.S. Marshal shall treat 14 the information regarding defendant Hart’s private address as confidential. If defendants are 15 unable to locate any information for service of defendant Hart, they shall notify the court within 16 that time. 17 On September 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to submit his 18 forms for service of defendants Munoz and Montanez. Because the court has denied plaintiff’s 19 motion to compel seeking additional information for service of these defendants, plaintiff’s 20 September 5, 2013 motion for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 70) is denied; 23 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is denied as to his request for 24 information regarding the locations of defendants Munoz and Montanez; 25 3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide additional information for 26 service of defendant Hart (ECF No. 73) is granted; within thirty days of the 27 date of this order, defendants shall conduct an inquiry regarding the location of 28 defendant Hart and provide the information set forth above; 3 1 4. If defendants provide defendant Hart’s private address to the U.S. Marshal, 2 the U.S. Marshal shall treat all information regarding defendant Hart’s 3 private address as confidential; and 4 5 5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. Dated: October 22, 2013 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?