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.

Williams v. Paramo

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 2, 2017

LONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
D. PARAMO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A HEARING DATE [ECF NO. 91] AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS [ECF NO. 84]

         Plaintiff's “Motion (Within Thirty (30) Days), for an Order of Compliance with Plaintiff's Subpoena's [sic]” (the “Motion to Compel”) with several exhibits was filed nunc pro tunc to September 15, 2017 [ECF Nos. 83, 84]. On September 22, 2017, Defendants filed an “Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance with Plaintiff's Subpoenas” [ECF No. 87]. On October 10, 2017, Williams filed a Reply [ECF No. 94]. Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking, inter alia, an order for a hearing date on the Motion to Compel (“Motion for a Hearing Date”), which was filed nunc pro tunc to September 29, 2017 [ECF Nos. 90, 91]. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for a Hearing Date [ECF No. 91] and the Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] are DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison officials Paramo, Olson, and Marrero of the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, and against the County of Los Angeles. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Williams alleges that on January 5, 2012, Paramo conspired with Olson, Marrero, Los Angeles County, and the District Attorney, by placing an “R” suffix in her prison records[1] “alleging that on 8-26-91, 8-27-91, and 8-29-91, the [P]laintiff (under juvenile court case number TJ01103) . . . was . . . convicted and . . . pleaded guilty to [California] Penal Code [section] 243.4 sexual battery . . . .” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that she was “never found guilty” of a sexual battery and there was an error in court records reflecting that she had a sex offense on her juvenile record. (Id.) She claims that as a result of being designated as a convicted sex offender, she began “receiving threats of harm” from prison gang members. (Id. at 4.) Williams contends that she attempted to inform Paramo that she was in imminent danger of injury and death, but Paramo disregarded her complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff further maintains that she tried to file a grievance on January 5, 2012, but Correctional Counselor R. Cobb refused to file her grievance and rejected her appeal. (Id. at 5.) She alleges violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of deliberate indifference, state law prohibitions against slander and libel, and conspiracy. (Id. at 3-5.) Williams seeks an injunction directing that the “R” suffix be removed from her prison records and that the offense of sexual battery be removed from her California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (“CLETS”) criminal records, $20 million in damages, $10 million in punitive damages, and other fees and costs. (Id. at 7.)

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On January 30, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 24.) On May 29, 2013, the Court granted the motion, dismissed the case without prejudice, and entered a judgment for Defendants. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed late objections to Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration, and denied Plaintiff's motion on September 3, 2017. (ECF Nos. 31, 39.) Williams timely appealed, and on January 7, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing this Court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and remanding the case for further proceedings. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015).

         On June 22, 2017, the Court issued a “Further Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings.” (ECF No. 66.) The order set August 7, 2017, as the deadline for the completion of fact discovery, and November 27, 2017, as the deadline for the completion of expert discovery. (Id. at 1-3.) On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff attempted to issue a subpoena directed to California State Prison-Sacramento, Correctional Counselor II, Litigation Coordinator, T. Kraemer. (Mot. Compel 7, ECF No. 84.) The subpoena requested the production of the following: “Departmental Operational Procedure (DOM's), volume's [sic] 1-5, CSP-Sacramento Operational Procedure, CDCR-128-B, chrono dated: 11-30-2011, CDCR-128-B-chrono, dated: 12-14-2011, Juvenile #: J123758, and Juvenile #: TJ01103 convictions and abstracts of Justice's [sic], Highland P/D arrest reports dated: 8-26-1991, completed CDCR-1432 dated: 9/5/17.” (Id.)

         T. Kraemer responded on September 7, 2017, that Plaintiff's “subpoena delivered on September 6, 2017, to California State Prison-Sacramento in Represa, California” was invalid because it was improperly issued. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was advised that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was formally objecting to her “subpoenas”, “[did] not acknowledge receipt of these subpoenas, ” and would not produce “the documents requested in the subpoena.” (Id.)

         Plaintiff completed a “Section A: Inmate/Parolee Request, ” which enclosed the subpoena that is the subject of this motion, and a “CDCR-1432, Request to Inspect Public Records, ” both dated September 5, 2017. (Id. at 4, 7.) She alleged that on August 31, 2017, she sent a CDCR-22 form to Correctional Counselor II, J. Coburn, and “(AW) R. Meier” seeking the Olsen Reviews of her C-files, but did not receive any response. (Id.) On September 6, 2017, T. Kraemer responded that Williams “may request an Olsen review and any copies from [her] assigned counselor, ” and referenced the “attached responses to [Plaintiff's] subpoena and Public Records Act request.” (Id.) Further, in a letter dated September 7, 2017, T. Kraemer stated that the CDCR reviewed Plaintiff's request and partially granted it pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Id. at 5.) Williams was advised that “[i]nmate C-file records [were] exempt from the mandate to be released as a public record due to inmate privacy laws[, ]” but she “may request . . . C-file documents from [her] assigned counselor via an [Olsen] Review.” (Id.) With respect to juvenile court documents, Plaintiff was informed that they were not located in her C-file and had to be “request[ed] . . . directly from the respective courts.” (Id.)

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion for a Hearing Date

         Plaintiff asks the Court to set a hearing date on her Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 91.) In its September 20, 2017 Minute Order setting the briefing schedule on the Motion to Compel, the Court stated the following: “The Court will schedule a hearing on the motion, if appropriate. Absent further order, the Court will rule on this motion without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1).” (ECF No. 85.)

         Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) provides that “[m]otions must be determined upon the moving papers referred to herein and oral argument[, ]” and “[a] judge may, in the judge's discretion, decide a motion without oral argument.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). Having reviewed the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court exercises its discretion and finds that the Motion to Compel is suitable for resolution without oral argument. See id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing Date.

         B. Motion to Enforce Compliance with Subpoenas

         Plaintiff seeks an order compelling California State Prison-Sacramento, Correctional Counselor II, J. Coburn; Litigation Coordinator, T. Kraemer; and CDCR General Counsel, Patrick R. McKinney, II, to comply with her “repeated” subpoenas and discovery requests.[2] (Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 84.) In support of her motion, Williams references the Court's June 22, 2017 “Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings.” (Id. (citing Case Management Conference Order, ECF No. 66).) She also provides copies of a subpoena and “Section A: Inmate/Parolee Request, ” both dated ...


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.