Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clinton v. California Dep't of Corrections

January 15, 2010

THOMAS CLINTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pending before the court are several of Plaintiff's motions/requests for discovery sanctions in the form of a default judgment. Plaintiff claims "spoliation of evidence" based on the argument that Defendants and defense counsel are destroying, concealing, and refusing to produce evidence. He claims there have been twenty-eight instances where the defendants have destroyed documents or manipulated discovery so as not to produce requested documents. Plaintiff is basically arguing that the defense is not acting in good faith.

I. Plaintiff's Summary of Motions

Plaintiff summarizes his requests for default judgment based on spoliation of evidence as follows*fn1

1. APPEAL TO COURT DECISION. OBJECTION OF COURTS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; PLAINTIFF QUALIFIES FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE PLRA

Judge Karlton agreed that prison staff obstructed Plaintiff's proper exhaustion of his administrative remedies, and which would prevent him from filing suit against them. (Docket #81) (Docket #91, p.4, lines 1-3).

2. MOTION FOR MISTRIAL 100% IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR ON THE BASIS OF SPOLIATION AND ADVERSE INFERENCE

Within this document Plaintiff proved with undeniable evidence that his prison records are falsified, and that other California prison officials informed the federal government that his rape was substantiated in 2004. [¶] This raises the serious question as to what else is falsified within Plaintiff's prison records, and if the Magistrate can trust any of Plaintiff's prison documents. (Docket #324).

3. REQUEST FOR SANCTION; REQUEST FOR MISTRIAL IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF; RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 14

Within this document Plaintiff proves that Defendant destroyed the electronic evidence of Sergeant Casner's CDC 1030, property file, and to prevent Plaintiff from proving that that document was rewritten to discredit Plaintiff's prisoner rape. Plaintiff needed that evidence to prove that these discrediting documents were re written, after staff gave Plaintiff's prison rape documents to other inmates to read. (Docket #323) [actually 322].

4. THE COURT IS BOUND TO DISMISS THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE DISCOVERY FOR THIS SUIT MAY BE UNNECESSARY

In this response to Defendants refusal to produce the property files on the computer generated documents. Plaintiff produced an excerpt from his diary that he kept, and where he was informed by John Doe staff that prison officials were re-writing his prison documents to exonerate themselves of their misconducts in publicizing Plaintiff's prisoner rape to inmates. Plaintiff's presented evidence creates a reasonable doubt that prison staff did re-write some of his prison documents to discredit and conceal his rape. In this document Plaintiff challenged the Court to explain how he "knew" that Defendants were re-writing his prison documents years before, and provided an excerpt from his diary were [sic] John Doe staff warned Plaintiff what prison officials were doing. (Docket #189).

5. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER: 15, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, p. 4-5

[¶] In Production No. 1 and its Motion to Compel, Defendant lied and stated that the Confidential Memorandum on Plaintiff's rape, that was released into prison population, and to cause injury to Plaintiff. Could not be found, but Plaintiff proved that that document was referenced during classification. [¶] This proved that either Defendant has the document in their custody and control or refuses to relinquish it for trial or, that state officials are destroying Plaintiff's inmate records to prevent Plaintiff's suit from prevailing. [¶] Either way the law says that if Plaintiff proves deceitful practices by Defendant this suit must be dismissed and granted 100% in Plaintiff's favor. Obviously the Classification Hearing document references Confidential Memorandums to refer to, and which were the documents that were released publicizing Plaintiff's prisoner rape. Destruction of evidence (especially when California states it must be kept for 30 years) is undeniable spoliation, and this suit must be dismissed in favor of Plaintiff to prevent a miscarriage of justice. (Docket #328, Exh. A)(Docket #329) [actually Doc. #210].

6. REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST DOCUMENTS THAT ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND/OR A JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED UNTRUSTWORTHY

Within this document Plaintiff provided undeniable evidence that Correctional Sergeant Sherer and Sergeant Casner documents were re-written and because the dates and timelines do not match with the Prison Classification Hearing documents. [¶] Plaintiff provided undeniable evidence that Defendant's destroyed Plaintiff's prison documents so he could not identify John Does and provide evidence of constructive knowledge. This is proven by the fact that the CDC 1030 actually references another document in which Defendant states does not exist. Even though the state is required to keep Plaintiff's prison records for 30 years. Proving prison staffs are destroying Plaintiff's documents to injure his suit and prevent the truth from being known. (Docket #213).

7. MOTION FOR MISTRIAL 100% IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR ON THE BASIS OF SPOLIATION AND ADVERSE INFERENCE

[Requesting] Judicial Notice that Plaintiff's prison rape documents were falsified. (Docket #214)

8. DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, AND SUBJECT TO DEFAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Within this document Plaintiff proved that the Prisons CDC 1030 Confidential Disclosure Forms referenced other documents, and Defendant has admitted that the referenced documents have been destroyed. Plaintiff has proven that the state is required to retain those documents in Plaintiff's prison record for no less than 30 years. This proves that it is a willful destruction of Plaintiff's evidence to protect Defendants Desantis, Riley, Cooper, and the John Does that publicized Plaintiff's prisoner rape. (Docket #216).

9. REQUEST FOR A SANCTION DUE TO DISCOVERY VIOLATION AND TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT DESANTIS HISTORY OF MISCONDUCTS

Within this document Plaintiff proved that Defendant lied about producing photographs of staff to identify his John Does, and that staff do not have to take a photograph. Those photographs already exist in staff personnel files. This is a clear violation of discovery, and not to mention Defendant "lied" to Plaintiff and the Court again. [¶] Plaintiff provided character evidence against Defendant P. Desantis, and evidence on how others are adversely treated when a party files a grievance/suit against P. Desantis. The staff turn on that person, to protect P. Desantis, and because he is the President of the prisons California Correctional Peace Officer's Association chapter at California Correctional Center, Susanville, California. (Docket #215).

10. SPOLIATION; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

Within this document Plaintiff proved that CDCR does have surveillance cameras to produce evidence of Plaintiff's abuse and to identify his John Does, and that Defendant deliberately produced the wrong evidence of the records retention schedule to permit Plaintiff to know how long those tapes are to be retained as records. [¶] Defendant refuses to produce the electronic evidence in the form of the video tapes, and refuses to produce how long those tapes are retained. The only logical reason for such acts is because: (1) Deliberately destroyed Plaintiff's evidence to prevent him from proving he was abused after he was raped; or (2) Deliberately not producing the evidence in their custody to permit Plaintiff to prove he was abused after he was raped. (Docket #321).

11. (TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH: SPOLIATION; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS.)

In this document Plaintiff proved that CDCR surveillance cameras actually "do" record, and that Defendant would have evidence to produce as Plaintiff requested. Yet, Defendant continues to lie and state that they do not. (Docket #223).

12. (TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH: REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST DOCUMENTS THAT ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND/OR A JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED UNTRUSTWORTHY.)

In this document Plaintiff proved that Defendant lied about not having the requested electronic evidence, which that evidence must be retained for 30 years, and Defendant is either: (1) Defendant is refusing to relinquish it because it would prove that the documents were re-written; or (2) Unlawfully destroyed to prevent Plaintiff from proving his claim. (Docket #224).

13. REQUEST FOR A SANCTION DUE TO DISCOVERY VIOLATION IN DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NUMBER FOUR.

In this document Plaintiff proved that Defendant does not have to take photographs of Plaintiff's requested evidence, and that CDCR could just print the documents from their surveillance cameras. Plaintiff specifically produced the inmate cages that Defendant states that they have no photographs of, and to prove that it is impossible for a prison rape victim to request medical attention without disclosing he was raped to other inmates. Thereby proving that raising the burden onto Desantis, Cooper, and Riley to inform medical that Plaintiff was raped and needs medical treatment. (Docket #227).

14. ANOTHER VIOLATION OF DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR SANCTION; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NUMBER 5, REQUEST 29.)

Here Plaintiff produced evidence that the CDCR medical admits the date that Plaintiff's Los Angeles Men's Central Jail files were received by CDCR and Defendants became aware that Plaintiff has a history of vulnerability. (Docket #248).

15. DISCOVERY VIOLATION, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, ADVERSE INFERENCE, AND A JUDICIAL NOTICE (PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NO. 1, REQUEST 17)

In this document Plaintiff proved that Defendant lied and stated that there is no such thing as a Simmons Decision Review, but Plaintiff has provided another inmate records to prove that there is. This is the process in which Defendant was supposed to use to identify the John Doe staff that released Plaintiff's prison rape documents to other inmates, and proves that Defendants are "concealing" the identity of Plaintiff's John Does. (Docket #247).

16. REQUEST FOR INFERENCE; REQUEST FOR SANCTION; TO ACCEPT AS GENUINE; JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND DISCOVERY VIOLATION IN RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NUMBER 11, REQUEST NUMBER 8

In this motion Plaintiff proved that Defendant lied about the CDC 114-A document and that there is actually a CDC 114-A log and then there is a CDC 114-A "file" where Plaintiff's administrative documents are kept for Defendants to read. Plaintiff has linked Defendants Riley and Cooper to knowing that Plaintiff was raped but did not summon medical care but, without the file Plaintiff is prevented from linking Defendant Desantis and John Doe(s) to knowing about Plaintiff's prisoner rape and did not summon medical care. (Docket #252).

17. CD DOCUMENT AS EXHIBIT 2 SPOLIATION AND VIOLATION OF DISCOVERY, DISCOVERY VIOLATION IN RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NUMBER 14, NUMBER 4

In this violation of discovery Plaintiff proved that Defendant deliberately produced the wrong evidence to prevent Plaintiff from acquiring the evidence that they have the documents in their possession but are refusing to relinquish them [sic]. (Docket #282).

18. DISCOVERY VIOLATION: DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET 3. REQUEST SANCTION, JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND ADVERSE INFERENCE

In this document Plaintiff proved that either prison officials are destroying Plaintiff's prison records that they are legally required to retain for a minimum of 30 years or Mr. Steel is refusing to produce evidence that Plaintiff is requesting to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff also proved that Mr. Steel presented false information and evidence and produced the wrong documents for the requested PRODUCTION of documents in an attempt to prevent alerting Plaintiff that his documents were being unlawfully destroyed. (Docket #225) [actually Doc. #255].

19. REQUEST FOR A SANCTION DUE TO SPOLIATION; PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NO. TWO, NOS. 7, 8 & 9

Here, Plaintiff proved by using the legal correspondence logs, that either Defendant is destroying his state records or refusing to relinquish them, most certainly Defendant is doing this [with] all of Plaintiff's requested evidence, and to prevent Plaintiff from prevailing with his suit. (Docket #270).

20. DISCOVERY VIOLATION; SPOLIATION; PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NO. 2, REQUEST NO.: 13

Here, Plaintiff proved that there was administrative correspondence alerting Former Director J. S. Woodsford about what was criminally going on at Trinity River Conservation Camp and California Correctional Center, by [sic] the administrative supervisors did nothing about it. Plaintiff proved that either : (1) CDCR officials are destroying Plaintiff's evidence that California law requires them to retain; or (2) Are refusing to produce it to keep Plaintiff from proving his claims. (Docket #269).

21. REQUEST SANCTION OF ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAS EVIDENCE IN THEIR CUSTODY AND CONTROL BUT IS REFUSING TO PRODUCE IT

Defendant continues to state that there are no confidential documents to be produced for Plaintiff's discovery but, Plaintiff produced a portion of the log were prison officials are signing in to read these documents that Defendant states do not exist in Response to Production of Documents Set No. One and Plaintiff has proven that such documents are clearly referenced in CDCR classification hearing documents. Plaintiff also proved that such documents must be retained for a minimum of 30 years. (Docket #285) [actually Doc. #265].

22. REQUEST FOR A SANCTION DUE TO DISCOVERY VIOLATION; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; ADVERSE INFERENCE. (PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NUMBER 7, REQUEST NO.: 7 & 8)

In this document Plaintiff proved that Deputy Attorney General Jeff Steel is manipulating Magistrate Kellison, Mr. Steele is not responding with an initial opposition, and still manipulating Magistrate Kellison to dismiss the requested document. Violating Plaintiff's right to due process. Plaintiff undeniably proved that Mr. Steel violated discovery rules and due process, but Magistrate Kellison is ignoring these continued violations. Plaintiff also proved that Defendants do have the evidence requested but are refusing to relinquish any evidence on how much violence occurs at California Correctional Center and Men's Colony. (Docket #274).

23. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; ADVERSE INFERENCE; AND JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT CDCR HAS THREATENED INMATES TO KEEP PLAINTIFF FROM EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS. DISCOVERY VIOLATION IN RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET NO.: 8, REQUEST NO.: 11

Providing evidence that not only are prison officials refusing to relinquish evidence for Plaintiff to prove his claims, but also threatening inmates to keep them from finding the evidence within the prison for Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.