Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01933/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01933-24/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 LESLIE JONES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:04-cv-01933 ALA (P)

vs.

LIEUTENANT E. SANDY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Plaintiff Leslie Jones (“Jones”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before this Court is Jones’s motion for the

attendance of nine incarcerated witnesses at his forthcoming trial. (Doc. 111.) Defendant

Lieutenant E. Sandy (“Sandy”) filed an opposition brief (Doc. 120), and Jones filed a response

(Doc. 121). For the reasons set forth below, Jones’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

I

Jones initially requested the attendance of the following inmates at trial: (1) Redmond

Cesare; (2) Joe M. Tyes; (3) Jimmy Asoau; (4) W. Talbert; (5) Jose M. Perez; (6) Clifford

Locklear; (7) Tyrone Wright; (8) Lawrence Cooper; and (9) Miguel E. Diaz. (Doc. 111 (at 2).)

In its March 27, 2008 Revised Scheduling Order (Doc. 104) (“Scheduling Order”), this

Court articulated several procedural requirements Jones must meet in order to obtain the

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 124 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Jones has also withdrawn his request to call incarcerated witnesses Aaron Richardson, 1

Steven Martinez, and John Rigoni. (Doc. 121 (Jones Decl. at 2).) Jones did not list these

individuals in his pretrial statement (Doc. 110), although he included their declarations with his

motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses (Doc. 111). To the extent Jones requested

the attendance of these three individuals at trial, that request is also DENIED as moot.

Wright submitted a sworn declaration indicating that he would voluntarily testify if 2

called. (Doc. 111 (Wright Decl. at 3).)

In the event Wright’s parole is revoked prior to trial, Jones is required to comply with 3

the procedural requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order. 

2

attendance of incarcerated and unincarcerated witnesses at trial. As discussed below, Jones has

met the procedural requirements for only two incarcerated witnesses, Locklear and Tyes.

II

A

With respect to inmates Jimmy Asoau (C-65314) and Lawrence Cooper (E-93746), Jones

states that he no longer wishes to call these individuals as witnesses. (Doc. 121 (Jones Decl. at

2).) Accordingly, Jones’s request for the attendance of these incarcerated witnesses is DENIED

as moot.1

B

With respect to inmate Tyrone Wright (B-70098), T. Davis, an employee of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), states that Wright paroled in

October 2007 and is no longer incarcerated at a CDCR facility. (Doc. 120-1 (T. Davis Decl. 

¶ 3).) The Scheduling Order provides that the procedure for obtaining the attendance of an

unincarcerated witness who agrees to testify voluntarily is that “[i]t is the responsibility of the

party who has secured an unincarcerated witness’ voluntary attendance to notify the witness of

the time and date of trial. No action need be sought or obtained from the court.” (Doc. 104 (at

4).) Accordingly, Jones’ request for the attendance of Tyrone Wright is DENIED. 2 3

C

With respect to inmates Redmond Cesare (K-79534), W. Talbert (D-60066), Miguel Diaz

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 124 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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

In his response brief, Jones appears to request the attendance of inmate Johnathan S. 4

Williams at trial. (Doc. 121 (Williams Decl.).) To the extent Jones makes such a request, it is

DENIED for the same reasons articulated above.

3

(T-83077), and Jose Perez (P-46359), Jones’s request for their attendance at trial is DENIED. 

In order to obtain the attendance of an incarcerated witness who agrees to testify voluntarily,

Jones must provide: (1) a sworn affidavit (from either Jones or the prospective witness)

confirming the prospective witness’s willingness to attend trial; and (2) a sworn affidavit (from

either Jones or the prospective witness) describing relevant facts to which the prospective

witness was an eye- or ear-witness. (Doc. 104 (at 2-3).) While Cesare, Talbert, Diaz, and Perez

have all provided sworn declarations confirming their willingness to testify if called, their

declarations do not describe relevant facts to which they were witnesses. Rather, Cesare,

Talbert, Diaz, and Perez all describe alleged situations where Sandy retaliated against them for

bringing their own civil rights actions or where Sandy otherwise expressed antagonism towards

them. None of these alleged situations are relevant to Jones’s claims. While Jones provides a

declaration describing the purported relevance of these individuals’ testimony (Doc. 121 (Jones

Decl. at 2)), Jones’s declaration lacks the specificity required by the Scheduling Order (Doc. 104

(at 3).) Accordingly, Jones’s request for the attendance of Redmond Cesare, W. Talbert, Miguel

Diaz, and Jose Perez at trial is DENIED.4

D

With respect to inmate Clifford Locklear (B-85554), Sandy does not oppose Jones’s

request to have Locklear attend trial (see Doc. 120 (at 2)) and Jones has met the procedural

requirements for obtaining Locklear’s attendance. First, Locklear provides a sworn declaration

stating that he “will freely testify” if called. (Doc. 111 (Locklear Decl.).) Second, Locklear’s

declaration describes relevant facts surrounding an exchange between Jones and Sergeant Martin

and involving Sandy. (Doc. 111 (Locklear Decl.).) Accordingly, Jones’s request for the

attendance of Clifford Locklear at trial is GRANTED.

With respect to inmate Joe Tyes (J-94963), Jones has met the procedural requirements

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 124 Filed 09/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

for obtaining Tyes’s attendance at trial. Jones states, under penalty of perjury, that he

inadvertently omitted Tyes’s declaration from his motion papers. (Doc. 121 (Jones Decl. at 2).) 

Having attached the Tyes declaration to his response brief (Doc. 121 (Tyes Decl.)) and given

that “[p]ro se habeas petitioners may not be held to the same technical standards as litigants

represented by counsel[,]” Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court will

consider the Tyes declaration. In that declaration, Tyes states that he “would free [sic] testify” if

called. (Doc. 121 (Tyes Decl.).) Tyes also describes relevant facts surrounding an exchange

Tyes allegedly witnessed between Jones and Sandy. (Id.) Accordingly, Jones’s request for the

attendance of Joe Tyes at trial is GRANTED.

III

For the foregoing reasons, Jones’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at

trial (Doc. 111) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will issue orders

and writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum for inmates Clifford Locklear and Joe Tyes at the

appropriate time.

/////

DATED: September 5, 2008 

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 124 Filed 09/08/08 Page 4 of 4