Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05255/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05255-10/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

ISADORE HENRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BURGEIS, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 03 5255 AWI DLB P

ORDER REGARDING INMATE

WITNESS

(Documents #132 & #133)

In this action, Plaintiff Isadore Henry alleges that he has been subjected to cruel and

unusual punishment because of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at CCI. Trial in this

action is set for April 18, 2006. The court has granted Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of

three incarcerated witnesses at trial, including inmate Bobby Lathely (CDC #P-20145).

On March 27, 2006, the court received a letter from Mr. Lathely and a motion regarding

Mr. Lathely’s testimony from Plaintiff. In the letter and motion, Plaintiff and Mr. Lathely

request that Mr. Lathely be allowed to testify by video conferencing. On April 5, 2006, the court

held an informal telephonic conference to discuss Plaintiff’s motion and Mr. Lathely’s letter.

At this time, the court does not find good cause to allow the testimony of Mr. Lathely by

video conferencing. Mr. Lathely’s primary concern appears to be some form of unspecified

retaliation if he testifies in open court. Video conferencing would not solve Mr. Lathely’s

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 136 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 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 2

concerns. Defendants will see and hear Mr. Lathely’s testimony during trial regardless of

whether Mr. Lathely testifies in person or over video conferencing. While Mr. Lathely cites the

inconvenience of being brought to trial in his letter, the court does not find Mr. Lathely has

provided sufficient evidence of a medical impairment to establish good cause for video

conferencing. Thus, the court will not allow Mr. Lathely to testify over video conferencing.

The court again informs the parties and Mr. Lathely that it is not this court’s policy to

transport an inmate witness unless that inmate witness is willing to come to court to testify. For

that reason, the court is serving a courtesy copy of this order on Mr. Lathely. If Mr. Lathely is

not willing to come to court to testify in this action, Mr. Lathely should contact the court

immediately. Any letter from Mr. Lathely should indicate the case name and case number of

this action, state that Mr. Lathely is not willing to testify, and ask that the transportation order be

vacated.

 Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion regarding the testimony of Mr. Lathely is DENIED without

prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send a courtesy copy of this order to:

Bobby Lathely (CDC #P-20145)

California Correctional Institute 

PO Box 608 

Tehachapi, CA 93581 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05255-AWI-DLB Document 136 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2