Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01625-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AT 

TRIAL

(ECF No. 78)

JULY 1, 2015 DEADLINE FOR 

SUBMISSION OF STATUTORY 

WITNESS FEES

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim. Trial is set for August 11, 2015. (ECF No. 86.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 3, 2015 motion for the attendance of 

witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 78.) Defendants oppose the motion. (ECF No. 88.)

I. INCARCERATED WITNESSES

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of incarcerated witnesses Barry Vance, Chris 

Thayer, and Thomas Brennick. He states that Inmates Vance and Thayer are willing to 

testify voluntarily, but that Inmate Brennick is not. He includes declarations from each 

inmate detailing their observations of the incident at issue in this case.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

2

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely and fails to 

make a sufficient showing that inmates Vance and Thayer are willing to testify 

voluntarily. They further argue that the testimony of all three inmate witnesses will be 

cumulative and therefore unnecessary. They suggest that, at most, two inmate 

witnesses be permitted to testify via video conference.

A. Timeliness

The Court’s December 19, 2014 scheduling order (ECF No. 42) required Plaintiff 

to file his motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses on or before June 1, 

2015. Plaintiff’s motion was filed June 3, 2015. Ordinarily, Plaintiff is entitled to the 

benefit of the prison mailbox rule, under which Plaintiff’s submission is deemed filed on 

the date he delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the Court Clerk. Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Plaintiff’s motion is dated May 29, 2015, but bears no 

indicia of when it was delivered to prison officials for mailing.

Nonetheless, the Court finds it unfathomable that Plaintiff’s motion would have 

arrived at the Courthouse for filing on June 3, 2015 had it not been delivered to prison 

officials by June 1, 2015. Moreover, even if it were not, such a minimal delay does not 

warrant precluding Plaintiff from presenting percipient witness testimony at trial. 

Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion despite its facial untimeliness.

B. Inmates’ Willingness to Testify Voluntarily 

The Court’s December 19, 2014 scheduling order (ECF No. 42) requires Plaintiff 

to show that his proposed witnesses are willing to testify voluntarily in one of two ways: 

(1) through a sworn declaration by Plaintiff that the witness has informed Plaintiff he or 

she is willing to testify voluntarily, stating when and where the witness so advised 

Plaintiff, or (2) through a sworn declaration stating same by the witness himself or 

herself.

Plaintiff’s motion states that Inmates Vance and Thayer advised Plaintiff they 

are willing to testify voluntarily, although Plaintiff apparently has not had contact with 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

3

either of them since 2014 and 2013, respectively. Plaintiff does not state when and 

where the witnesses informed him of their willingness. Plaintiff’s statements are not set 

out formally in a declaration, but the motion nonetheless is signed under penalty of 

perjury. 

Defendants point out Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the scheduling order: 

Plaintiff does not state where and when he was advised of his potential inmate 

witnesses’ willingness to testify voluntarily. Additionally, given the time that apparently 

has passed since Plaintiff’s last communication with either inmate, they may no longer 

be willing to testify voluntarily.

Despite Plaintiff’s technical noncompliance with the scheduling order, the Court 

maintains discretion to grant a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses if 

the moving party has shown the witnesses have relevant information and the Court 

determines the witnesses’ presence will substantially further the resolution of the case. 

Wiggins v. Alameda Cnty., 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the 

Court will proceed to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. However, if either party determines 

prior to trial that an inmate witness is unwilling to testify voluntarily, the party may file a 

motion for reconsideration of this order, supported by an appropriate declaration. 

C. Benefits of Witnesses’ Testimony at Trial

1. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff’s motion includes declarations from his potential witnesses. 

The declaration from Inmate Vance is undated, and states that Vance was in the

chow hall when an alarm sounded and the inmates were told to get down. Vance 

looked over and saw Defendant Hernandez on top of Plaintiff, hitting him repeatedly. 

Plaintiff was not doing anything wrong. Defendant Rodriguez came running in and 

immediately kicked Plaintiff in the face. More officers came in, including Defendant 

Clark. They all started punching, kicking, and stomping on Plaintiff in his face and head 

area. This continued for approximately three minutes. 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

4

The declaration from Inmate Thayer is undated, and states that Thayer was in 

the chow hall when he heard Defendant Zambrano yell. Thayer looked over and 

observed Defendant Hernandez on top of Plaintiff, striking him. Defendant Rodriguez 

ran to the scene of the incident and began kicking and punching Plaintiff while Plaintiff 

was face-down in a prone position. Defendants Clark and Martin arrived and kicked 

Plaintiff in the head and face. The officers also were accidentally kicking each other 

due to the large number of officers involved. This continued for three to four minutes.

The declaration from Inmate Brennick is dated March 9, 2013, and states that 

Brennick saw two officers forcing Plaintiff down in the chow hall while Defendant 

Zambrano handcuffed Plaintiff. Defendant Rodriguez punched Plaintiff in the head and 

face multiple times. Other officers arrived and proceeded to kick and punch Plaintiff. 

While Plaintiff was restrained, Defendant Hernandez ran up and kicked Plaintiff in the 

face. Brennick stood up at his table and verbalized his disagreement with the officers’ 

conduct. He then was taken out of the chow hall and told to forget what happened or 

the same would happen to him. 

2. Defendants’ Arguments

Defendants argue that ordering Inmate Brennick to appear may result in undue 

waste of time and delay, given that he has indicated he will not testify voluntarily. They 

further question Inmates Vance’s and Thayer’s agreement to testify voluntarily, despite 

Plaintiff’s averments they are willing to do so.

Defendants also argue that all eyewitness accounts of the alleged incident 

should be identical, and thus the testimony of Plaintiff’s proposed witnesses will be 

cumulative. Allowing all three witnesses to testify in person would lengthen trial due to 

logistical delays associated with securing the inmates in the courtroom. Defendants 

suggest that the Court should limit Plaintiff to, at most, two inmate eyewitnesses, and 

should allow those witnesses to testify via video conference.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

3. Discussion

Defendants’ argument that the testimony of Plaintiff’s inmate witnesses may be 

cumulative is not well-taken. In their pretrial statement, Defendants list three non-party 

percipient witnesses they intend to call to testify regarding the incident at issue in this 

case. They also intend to present similar testimony from all five Defendants. If, as 

Defendants suggest, all eyewitness accounts of the incident should be identical, the 

testimony of Defendants’ eight witnesses likewise would be cumulative. Defendants, 

however, have not offered to limit testimony from their own witnesses on this ground. In 

light of Defendants’ proposed witness list, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request modest –

particularly where, as here, Plaintiff himself is limited in his ability to provide meaningful 

testimony regarding Defendants’ conduct based on his claim that he was face down for 

much of the incident.

Similarly, in light of the number of defense witnesses and Plaintiff’s own difficulty 

in providing meaningful testimony regarding Defendants’ conduct, logistical delays 

associated with the witnesses’ incarceration do not provide a sufficient basis for 

precluding their testimony. Nor do these delays present sufficient compelling 

circumstances to require the inmates to testify remotely via video conference. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 43(a) (testimony by contemporaneous transmission from a different location 

rather than in open court may be permitted for good cause in compelling circumstances 

with appropriate safeguards). Video conferencing “cannot be justified merely by 

showing that it is inconvenient for the witness to attend the trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43 

advisory committee’s notes (1996).

Thus, the Court must determine whether to require these inmates’ presence at 

trial, despite the possibility (and in the case of Inmate Brennick, the likelihood) that they 

may be unwilling to testify voluntarily. In determining whether to grant Plaintiff's motion, 

the factors to be taken into consideration include (1) whether the inmate’s presence will 

substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks presented by the 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of transportation and security, and (4) whether the 

suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause asserted.1

Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 n. 1; see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the 

inconvenience and expense of transporting inmate witness outweighed any benefit he 

could provide where the importance of the witness's testimony could not be 

determined), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115

(1995).

Plaintiff’s motion indicates that all three prospective witnesses are able to 

provide relevant eyewitness testimony bearing directly on Plaintiff’s claims and the 

credibility of the parties. Accordingly, the Court concludes that their presence will 

substantially further resolution of the case. There is nothing before the Court to indicate 

that any of the prospective witnesses presents a greater than average security risk. A 

review of the State of California’s Inmate Locator indicates that Inmates Vance and 

Thayer are housed at Kern Valley State Prison, and that Inmate Brennick is housed at 

Wasco State Prison. Thus, it does not appear that the inmates’ attendance at trial 

would involve extraordinary expense. 

In light of these factors, the witnesses’ potential unwillingness to testify does not 

warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion. “There is plenty that a judge can do to encourage a 

witness’s testimony.” Barnett v. Norman, 782 F.3d 417, 423 (9th Cir. 2015). Although 

such efforts ultimately may prove fruitless, the testimony of the witnesses at issue here 

is central to Plaintiff’s case, and the Court concludes that Plaintiff must have the 

opportunity to attempt to elicit such testimony. The Court notes that Defendants intend 

to object to any declarations by inmate witnesses that Plaintiff may attempt to offer. 

Additionally, Inmate Brennick was interviewed by correctional staff regarding this 

incident, and a video tape of the interview has been made available to Plaintiff. 

 

1

Since the Court has no information on the release dates of any of the prospective witnesses, this factor 

shall not be discussed. 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

However, during the interview, Inmate Brennick was directed by correctional staff not to 

elaborate on any interactions between Plaintiff and correctional staff. Thus, it appears 

Plaintiff has no other means of presenting evidence from these witnesses.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses will be granted. The Court separately will issue writs of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum for the presence of Inmates Vance, Thayer, and Brennick at trial.

II. UNINCARCERATED WITNESSES

Plaintiff seeks to subpoena Correctional Captain A. Walker and Associate 

Warden D. Fischer to testify at trial. Both officers are employed at Pleasant Valley 

State Prison (“PVSP”). (ECF No. 78.)

Defendants object only on the ground that Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of 

these witnesses is unnecessary. They point out that Plaintiff was required to provide 

the Court with each witness’ name and location to allow the Court to calculate the 

statutory witness fees. They also contend that any further motion or request is 

unwarranted. (ECF No. 88.)

The Court’s December 19, 2014 scheduling order advised Plaintiff of the 

procedures for subpoenaing unincarcerated witnesses for trial. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff 

was advised to notify the Court in writing of the name and location of such witnesses 

by June 1, 2015. He has done so.

Accordingly, the Court will advise Plaintiff of the travel expenses for each 

witness so that Plaintiff may meet his obligation of submitting, not later than July 1, 

2015, a money order to cover the travel expenses for each witness. Without the money 

orders, no subpoena will issue and no witness will be served by the United States 

Marshal.

Plaintiff lists the location of these witnesses as PVSP, P.O. Box 8500, Coalinga, 

CA 93210. The Court takes judicial notice that the physical location of PVSP is 24863 

West Jayne Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210. The round trip mileage from PVSP to the 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 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

United States District Court in Fresno, CA is 123 miles and the mileage rate is 57.5 

cents per mile. Accordingly, the total mileage fee for each of these witnesses is $70.73. 

Each witness also is entitled to a $40.00 daily witness fee. Therefore, Plaintiff must 

submit a money order in the amount of $110.73 payable to each of these individuals he 

wants subpoenaed to trial.

Plaintiff is reminded that the deadline for submitting money orders to subpoena 

witnesses is July 1, 2015. The Court will take and keep Plaintiff’s motion for the 

attendance of these witnesses under submission pending receipt of these money 

orders.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of witnesses (ECF No. 78) is HEREBY 

GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness is GRANTED;

2. The Court separately will issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum 

for the presence of Inmates Vance, Thayer, and Brennick for trial; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses is taken 

under submission pending receipt of money orders covering the 

statutorily mandated witness fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/18/15 Page 8 of 8