Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D.L. STEPHENS, et al., )

)

Defendants )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 00-5817 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTENDANCE OF

UNINCARCERATED WITNESSES

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED

WITNESS

(Documents #161 & #168)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Josh Thomas’ First Amended Complaint filed on

October 30, 2000. The First Amended Complaint requests damages to remedy Defendants’

failure to follow medical orders and requirement that Plaintiff work at tasks for which he was not

medically able. Trial is set for February 22, 2006. A telephonic trial confirmation hearing is

set for January 17, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. Pending before the court are Plaintiff’s motion for the

attendance of an incarcerated witness and Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of unincarcerated

witnesses.

Incarcerated Witness

Plaintiff has filed a motion to have inmate Thomas G. Luparello, C-51721,

brought to trial to testify. Plaintiff provides a declaration signed by Luparello, indicating a

willingness to testify and Luparello’s proposed testimony. Luparello states that from January

2002 until the present he has was worked on the yard crew. Luparello describes how work is

assigned on the yard crew and the types of tasks preformed. Defendants object to bringing 

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 183 Filed 01/12/06 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 2

Luparello to trial to testify because Luparello was not on the yard crew during the time frame at

issue in this action.

Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows for the admission of relevant

evidence at trial to the extent the evidence is not prohibited under another Rule. Relevant

evidence is defined as “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. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rule 403 allows the court to exclude relevant

evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of

time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” The court has broad discretion in

assessing admissibility under Rule 403. Getter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 66 F.3d 1119, 1124

(10th Cir. 1995). 

Testimony from Luparello about the type of work down by yard crews has some

relevance to this action. However, Luparello was not on the yard crew during the time Plaintiff

was on the yard crew and the incidents underlying this action arose. There is no evidence that

the yard crew did the same tasks and work was assigned in the same way in both 1999 and 2002. 

Because Luparello was not on the same yard crew as Plaintiff and there is no evidence

Luparello’s yard crew does the same tasks that were required of Plaintiff in 1999, the court finds

that any relevancy to Luparello’s testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of

confusing the issues. Thus, the court declines to bring Luparello to trial to testify because his

testimony is not particularly helpful in the resolution of the issues before the court. 

Unincarcerated Witnesses

Plaintiff has also has filed a motion for the attendance of unincarcerated

witnesses. In his motion Plaintiff lists: C/O A. Quinones; Associate Warden B. Espinosa;

Lieutenant Harlow; C/O G. Seeley; Counselor Gibson; Counselor Ridgley; C/O F Lopez; C/O

Silvera; C/O Gonzales; and C/O D. Walls as potential witnesses. Plaintiff explains how each

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 183 Filed 01/12/06 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

1

 One case holding the opposite is of note. In William v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563 (8th

Cir.1993), the Eighth Circuit found that the trial court had abused its discretion by not allowing

subpoenas to be served on all of the pro se prisoner’s witnesses. While William does not

specifically discuss whether the prisoner paid the witnesses’ fees or the court waived them, there

is an implication that the fees were waived. Assuming William stands for the proposition that

the court has the power to waive witness fees in a civil case, the Eighth Circuit is in the minority

and most other circuits have found the court cannot waive witness fees. See, e.g., Boring v.

Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir.1987); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289 (6th

Cir.); McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368, 1373 (7th Cir.1987). Because this court is in the Ninth

Circuit it is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s finding that witnesses fees cannot be waived by the

court.

3

of these ten witnesses is relevant to his case. Plaintiff also states that each of these ten witnesses

will not appear voluntarily at trial. 

Plaintiff has already been given instructions on obtaining the presence of

unincarcerated witnesses. Plaintiff has been informed that if an unincarcerated witness will not

testify voluntarily, Plaintiff must fill out a subpoena for each such witness and provide a money

order made payable to each witness for $40.00, plus the witnesses’ travel expenses. The

completed subpoenas and the money orders must be submitted by January 17, 2006. 

In Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff appears to ask that the court waive the witness fees

and fees for travel expenses. Plaintiff claims that he does not have the ability to pay these fees

but still needs these witnesses at trial. The court has no authority to order any unincarcerated

witness to appear at trial without requiring the plaintiff to pay witness fees. The Supreme Court

has declared that “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper

only when authorized by Congress.” United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). 

The Ninth Circuit has found that the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not

provide for the payment of fees or expenses of an indigent litigant’s witnesses. See Dixon v.

Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989).1

While 28 U.S.C. 1915 provides for service of process to an indigent litigant’s witnesses, it does

not waive the payment of fees or expenses for those witnesses. Hadsell v. C.I.R., 107 F.3d 750,

752 (9th Cir. 1997). Because witness fees and milage is a payment going directly to the

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 183 Filed 01/12/06 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

witnesses for their time and expenses, not the court, it is not the type of fee the court has the

power to waive. Based on the nature of these fees and case authority, Plaintiff’s motion for the

court to bring unincarcerated witnesses to the trial must be denied. However, Plaintiff will be

able to call any of the named Defendants who appear at trial as witnesses. In addition, Plaintiff

may call any other of Defendants’ witnesses if they appear at trial and if Plaintiff has listed them

as witnesses in his pre-trial statement. Finally, Plaintiff may cross-examine any other witness

that Defendants call to testify.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status simply does allow the court to waive the

witness fees. Plaintiff must fill out a subpoena for each unincarcerated witness and return it with

a separate $40.00 money order, plus travel expenses, made payable to each of the witnesses. The

completed subpoenas and the money orders must be submitted by January 17, 2006. Before the

court will order the Marshal to serve the subpoenas, Plaintiff must fill out the portions of the

subpoenas relating to trial testimony, sign them as the “issuing officer,” complete the enclosed

Notice of Submission, and return the documents to the court with money orders, made payable to

each of the prospective witnesses.

Order

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness Thomas G.

Luparello, C-51721, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witness without

payment of witness fees is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff ten subpoenas.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 183 Filed 01/12/06 Page 4 of 4