Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-39/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

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

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint, filed on November 11, 2011, against Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and 

Omos for excessive force in pepper spraying Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against 

Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering that Plaintiff’s property be 

removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back into a contaminated cell without means to 

decontaminate from the pepper spray in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants 

Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On October 2, 2013, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting this matter for trial on April 

15, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order also set forth the procedures for securing the attendance of 

incarcerated and unincarcerated witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 274.)

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00456 -LJO-BAM PC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE REQUEST 

FOR GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 

279)

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 281 Filed 11/12/13 Page 1 of 2
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

On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte request for clarification of the 

procedures for securing the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses. First, Plaintiff inquired as to 

application of the procedures for obtaining the attendance of a parolee. Plaintiff explains that one of 

his witnesses has paroled, but will need to be subpoenaed for trial because he cannot leave his county 

of residence. Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a subpoena for the attendance of this witness and 

according to the instructions in the Second Scheduling Order. 

Second, Plaintiff inquired as to whether the procedures for securing the attendance of 

unincarcerated witnesses that refuse to testify voluntarily applies to defendants. Plaintiff explains that 

he wishes to call defendants as witnesses at trial. Plaintiff is not required to seek subpoenas to secure 

the attendance of defendants at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 281 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 2