Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225-12/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 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILIPE NOE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

ORDER

vs.

JG GRIMM; SGT HIGHTOWER;

RHINELANDER; SETTER; SWINEY; J.

MACLEOD,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Ad Testificandum and

Motion for Subpoenas filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia (ECF Nos. 190, 219). 

I. Petition for Writ of Habeas Ad Testificandum 

On April 1, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad

Testificandum (ECF No. 171) for himself, Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin,

David Cano, Francisco Flores, David Flores, Francisco Gongora, Geraldo Ojito, Michael

Colon, Christopher Macits, Ricardo Magana, Robert Gomez, Alberto Hernandez, Juan Torres,

Ronnie Monie, and Mark Winston. 

On June 21, 2011, the Court issued an Order stating: 

The Court finds that testimony by Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks,

Robert Marin, and David Cano, who were each eye-witnesses to the

incident, may be relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not have access

to the witnesses. The Court cannot determine on this record whether

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8
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

 The court granted Defendants an extension of time to August 22, 2011 for Defendants

to complete the depositions. (ECF No. 194). The Court did not extend the deadline for

providing Plaintiff with a copy of the deposition transcripts. 

- 2 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

the value of Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, or David

Cano’s testimony justifies the expense and security risk associated with

transporting the inmate-witness to court from a correctional facility.

See Greene v. K.W. Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1996).

The Court orders Defendants to take a telephonic deposition of Julio

Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, and David Cano, if they are

currently incarcerated. Defendants shall pay the costs associated with

the depositions. Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad

Testificandum is denied with leave to renew after the depositions are

completed. 

Plaintiff has failed to make even a minimal showing that

testimony by inmates Francisco Flores, David Flores, Francisco

Gongora, Geraldo Ojito, Michael Colon, Christopher Macits, Ricardo

Magana, Robert Gomez, Alberto Hernandez, Juan Torres, Ronnie

Monie, and Mark Winston is relevant and necessary in this case.

During oral argument, Plaintiff requested leave to submit additional

information regarding inmate Geraldo Ojito. Plaintiff may file a

motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum regarding inmate

Geraldo Ojito by July 5, 2011. Defendants may respond by July 25,

2011. 

...

 The Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum

(ECF No. 171) filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia is DENIED. 

Defendants shall arrange for the telephonic depositions of Julio

Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, and David Cano, if they

are currently incarcerated, to be completed by no later than August 8,

2011. Defendants shall provide transcripts of the depositions to

Plaintiff by September 12, 2011. Plaintiff may file any motion for

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum regarding Julio Contreras,

Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, or David Cano by October 12, 2011. 

(ECF No. 186 at 4-5).1

 

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Writ of Habeas Ad Testificandum for

Gerlad Ojito. (ECF No. 190 at 6). Plaintiff contends that “Prisoner Geraldo Ojito will testify

to what he heard on May 1, 2005 ... starting with when Plaintiff Felipe Garcia was arguing

with cell mate David Cano; the arrival of sheriff deputies ... and the exchange of words and

what followed....” Id. at 7. 

On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas ad Testificandum was

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 8
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

 Although Plaintiff was ordered to file any motion for writ of habeas corpus ad

testificandum by October 12, 2011, Defendants contend that they sent the transcript of the

deposition testimony to Plaintiff on November 8 and 22, 2011, approximately two months past

the September 12, 2011 deadline. (ECF No. 227 at 2). Accordingly, the Court does not find

that the petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is untimely. 

- 3 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

filed. (ECF No. 219).2 Plaintiff seeks an order for the appearance of the following

incarcerated witnesses at the bench trial set for January 31, 2012: Geraldo Ojito, Robert Marin,

David Cano, Rodney Brooks, Julio Contreras, and Arthur Torres. Plaintiff contends that the

witnesses are “housed at different state prisons in California.” Id. at 15. Plaintiff contends that

“[b]ased on their depositions there is conclusive evidence that the nature and materiality of

their testimony is relevant and necessary ....” Id. at 18. Plaintiff contends that “[i]t would be

very unfair to require Plaintiff to rely on depositions taken by Defendants’ lawyer ....” Id. 

On December 29, 2011, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum (ECF No. 227) and filed the Depositions of Julio Contreras

and Rodney Brooks (ECF No. 229). Inmate David Cano refused to testify. Defendants

contend that “Garcia and defense counsel questioned Brooks and Contreras thoroughly during

their depositions regarding the Defendants’ efforts to control [Garcia] after his hands were in

the food flap, and whether the amount of force each of the Defendants applied to Garcia

thereafter was reasonably necessary to overcome Garcia’s resistance.” (ECF No. 227 at 4).

“Defendants contend the[] admission into evidence [of the deposition transcripts are] sufficient

in themselves, with no need for the witnesses to provide cumulative live testimony.” Id. at 4-5.

Defendant contend that Plaintiff has failed to make any “showing as to how either witness’

testimony would differ from or be more effective if offered live in court rather than through

the reading of their depositions.” Id. at 5. 

Defendants assert that inmate Brooks is currently serving a life sentence for second

degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon for a drive-by shooing in 1991, as well as a

conviction of manufacturing a weapon while in prison. Defendants assert that Brooks “is

officially listed as both a Mexican Mafia and Westside 18th Street gang associate.” Id.

Defendants assert that Brooks is a high level custody inmate and that California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations require that two correctional officers, including

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 8
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

3

 Plaintiff notified the Court that Robert Marin was released from state custody.

Plaintiff requested that the Court subpoena Marin, but he failed to pay the fees and costs

associated with the subpoenas. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request was denied. (ECF No. 208).

- 4 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

one supervisor, accompany Brooks at all times in which he moves throughout the prison. 

Defendants assert that inmate Contreras is currently serving a 16 years-to-life sentence

for convictions of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and conspiracy. Defendants

assert that Contreras “has been officially validated as a Mexican Mafia associate and member

of the Old Town National City gang.” Id. at 6. Defendants assert that Contreras is a high level

custody inmate and that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations

require that two correctional officers, including one supervisor, accompany Contreras at all

times in which he moves throughout the prison. 

In ruling on a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, the Court must

balance the relevance and necessity of the testimony against the security risks involved in

having the witnesses transported to the Court to testify during trial. See Greene v. K.W.

Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (holding “[i]n order to grant the writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum the Court must determine not only whether an inmate-witness’

testimony is relevant, but also, whether such testimony is necessary. This determination

depends ultimately upon whether the probative value of the testimony justifies the expense and

security risk associated with transporting an inmate-witness to court from a correctional

facility.”). “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence

of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “All relevant evidence

is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act

of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to

statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. 

The Court ordered telephonic depositions of Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert

Marin, and David Cano, if they were currently incarcerated. Depositions were completed for

Julio Contreras and Rodney Brooks.3

 A review of the deposition transcripts of Contreras and

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Brooks reveals that defense counsel and Plaintiff Garcia were able to question the witnesses

and that the witnesses gave a thorough account of the events in question. Plaintiff has failed

to identify any testimony that inmates Contreras or Brooks would give in addition to their

deposition testimony. With regards to Geraldo Ojito and Arthur Torres, Plaintiff has failed to

make even a minimal showing that their testimony is necessary in light of the Contreras and

Brooks depositions. The Court does not conclude that “the probative value of [Contreras,

Brooks, Cano, Ojito, and Torres]’s testimony justifies the expense and security risk associated

with transporting an inmate-witness to court from a correctional facility.” Greene, 938 F.

Supp. at 639. The Petitions for Writ of Habeas Ad Testificandum filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe

Garcia (ECF Nos. 190, 219) are DENIED. 

II. Motion for Order for Subpoenas 

On April 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order for Subpoenas for the following

potential witnesses: Dr. Ellen Gabel; Lisa Dimeo, crime scene analyst; Daiel Vornhof,

forensic specialist in mechanics; Vincent Nathan, expert consultant on field of jails and

prisons; Thomas MacSpeiden, psychologist; and Deputies Stevens, Benavides, Rogers,

Gonzolez, Zdunich, Saiazar, Shannon, Grimm, Lionsdale, Hightower, Swiney, Rhineland,

Setter, MacLeod, Grijalva, Neagles-Carter, Massey, Pollington, and Edlin. (ECF No. 173). 

On June 21, 2011, the Court issued an Order stating:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2) provides: “A subpoena

must issue ... for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the

district where the hearing or trial is to be held....” Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) provides: “The clerk

must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who

requests it. That party must complete it before service.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45(a)(3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) service of a

subpoena be made by a person who is 18 years or older and is not a

party to the case. The Court is required to “issue and serve all process

and perform all such duties” for a plaintiff proceeding in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). Plaintiff, however, is responsible for

paying all fees and costs associated with the subpoenas. See Tedder v.

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1989). For example, if a

subpoena requires a person’s attendance, fees for one day’s attendance

and mileage must be tendered concurrent with service. Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1821. These fees are not waived based

on Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Clerk of Court shall issue and forward to Plaintiff a

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 5 of 8
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

- 6 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Subpoena in a Civil Case form and a U.S. Marshal 285

form as well as a copy of this Order.

(2) Upon receipt of the properly completed U.S. Marshal

285 form, accompanying subpoena, and the tender of

witness fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821, the

U.S. Marshal is directed to promptly effect service of

Plaintiff's subpoena

(ECF No. 187 at 1-2).

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Subpoena for some of the same

potential witnesses. (ECF No. 190). On October 10, 2011, the Court issued an order stating:

Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, has requested a subpoena for Robert Marin, who has been

released from state custody, Dr. Ellen Gabel, Lisa Dimeo, crime scene

analyst, Daiel Vornhof, forensic specialist in mechanics, Vincent

Nathan, expert consultant on field of jails and prisons, Thomas

MacSpeiden, psychologist, and Deputies Stevens, Benavides, Rogers,

Gonzolez, Saiazar, Grijalva, Massey, Neagles-Carter, Lonsdale,

Grimm, and Hightower.

...

Plaintiff has failed to pay the fees and costs associated with the

subpoenas. Accordingly, the Motion for Subpoenas (ECF No. 190) is

DENIED.

(ECF No. 208 at 1-2). 

On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed his third Motion for Order for Subpoenas

requesting the Court issue subpoenas on some of the same potential witnesses as follows: Dr.

Ellen Gabel; Lisa Dimeo, crime scene analyst; Daiel Vornhof, forensic specialist in mechanics;

Thomas MacSpeiden, psychologist; and Yolanda Navarro, P.C.C. legal runner. Plaintiff

contends that he “was not aware” that he was required to tender fees for one day’s attendance

and milage. (ECF No. 219 at 3). Plaintiff also seeks to secure the attendance of witnesses who

“are either Sheriff’s Deputies or are in control of law-enforcement” as follows: Robert Marin,

out on parole; Deputy Benavidez; Deputy G. Gonzalez; Deputy J. Lionsdale; Deputy R. Jr.

Salazar; Deputy James Grimm; Deputy Hightower; Deputy Swiney; Deputy Setter; Deputy

Macleod; Deputy Grijalva; Deputy Neagles; and Deputy M. Massey. Plaintiff contends that

he should not be required to pay the fees and costs associated with the subpoenas because the

“testimonial evidence is material [and] necessary.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff also contends that the

Court may call the witnesses and require the United States to pay the fees and costs pursuant

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

to Federal Rule of Evidence 614. 

A plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) is responsible

for paying all fees and costs associated with subpoenas. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211,

212 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Alexander v. Plainer, 390 F.App’x 724, 726 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The

district court rightly exercised its discretion by denying [Plaintiff’s] request to subpoena a

particular correctional officer because [Plaintiff] did not pay the required witness and mileage

fees ....”). If a subpoena requires a person’s attendance, fees for one day’s attendance and

mileage must be tendered concurrent with service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 1821. These fees are not waived based on Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. Tedder, 890

F.2d at 211-12. 

Plaintiff has again failed to pay the fees and costs associated with the subpoenas. The

Motion for Order for Subpoenas (ECF No. 219) is DENIED. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 614 provides: “The court may call a witness on its own or at

a party’s request. Each party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 614(a);

see also Estrella-Ortega v. United States, 423 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1970) (“A district court

has the power to call any witness as the court’s witness. The decision rests upon the court’s

reasoned discretion.”); Ochoa v. United States, 167 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1948) (noting the

“danger implicit in a situation where the judge assumes, or appears to assume, the role of

advocate ....”). The Court does not abuse its discretion in declining to call a witness pursuant

to a party’s request where the party has “access to sufficient information through alternative

sources.” McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368, 1374 n.3 (7th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, Plaintiff has previously submitted copies of his complete medical records

regarding the incident, his psychiatry records and report, photographs, investigation reports,

transcripts from Garcia’s criminal trial, interrogatory responses from Defendants, and Garcia’s

prison grievances. Plaintiff has the deposition transcripts of inmates Contreras and Brooks.

Plaintiff has personal knowledge regarding the incident in question and may testify. The Court

finds that Plaintiff has access to sufficient information through alternative sources to present

his claims. The Court declines to call the witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Procedure 614. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Ad Testificandum and

Motion for Order for Subpoenas filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia (ECF Nos. 190, 219) are

DENIED. The bench trial set for January 31, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 is vacated and

reset to April 17, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4. 

DATED: January 23, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 242 Filed 01/23/12 Page 8 of 8