Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06517/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06517-3/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

1Although the parties were informed during the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing that Judge Coyle

would likely not be handling the trial, until an order transferring the case to another District Judge issues, all Orders

of the Court will reflect the trial date currently set by the Court. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMBER MERRIE BRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLEY, R.N.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 01 6517 REC SMS P 

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC TRIAL

CONFIRMATION HEARING 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED

WITNESSES (Doc. 62.) 

 Amber Merrie Bray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiffs Amended Complaint filed on October 2, 2002, against Defendant Sharon S. Holley

for an Eighth Amendment medical claim. The case is currently set for trial before the Honorable

Robert E. Coyle on November 15, 2005, 9:00 a.m.1

On September 20, 2005, this Court held a Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing. At

this hearing, the Court discussed with the parties the Motion for the Attendance of Incarcerated

Witnesses filed by Plaintiff on May 17, 2005. (Court. Doc. 62.) The Court held that it would

allow the attendance of Sarah Mitchell, Plaintiff’s cellmate, and Brandita Taliano, as a potential

rebuttal witness. The Court also informed Plaintiff that it had received the funds tendered for

the attendance of three Correctional Employees and that subpoenas for their attendance along

Case 1:01-cv-06517-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 09/21/05 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

with the money orders would issue. 

In addition the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas for Tom Bray and

Marianthi King. 

Accordingly, based on the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses is GRANTED IN PART to

the extent that Ms. Sarah Mitchell and Ms. Brandita Taliano will be subpoenaed

to testify on behalf of Plaintiff; 

2. The Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses is DENIED in part with

regard to the attendance of Ms. Yvette Abero, Crystal Furness, Anamaria

Gonzales-Lemus, and Julia Olivas. 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to complete a subpoena for Tom Bray and

Marianthi King, using the information provided by Plaintiff in her Amended

Request for Two Blank Subpoenas. (Doc. 73.) An order directing service will

issue separately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06517-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2