Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776-27/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

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI

Plaintiff,

v.

T. WAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00776-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR ASSISTANCE FACILITATING

COMMUNICATION WITH INMATE

WITNESSES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO

RENEWAL WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS

(Docs. 62 and 76)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law by Punaofo

Tsugito Tilei, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 30, 2007, against Defendants Wan, Gallagher, and

Cooper for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and for denial of due process in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment. The events at issue in this action occurred at the California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran in 2005. 

On September 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order allowing him to

communicate with inmate witness Ly, and on January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a

court order allowing him to communicate with sixteen inmate witnesses, including Ly. Although

Plaintiff attests that all of the witnesses possess relevant information necessary for him to prosecute

his case, Plaintiff’s motions are devoid of any factual showing that the inmates possess actual

knowledge of relevant facts.

Inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from the

appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139 (2010). Further, the Court does not have

1

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 89 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, and cannot order that

Plaintiff be allowed to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los

Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). However, the Court will request that Plaintiff and

his inmate witnesses be authorized to correspond if the Court is satisfied that the witnesses possess

actual knowledge of relevant facts. Plaintiff is required to make that showing with respect to each

witness, and may not rely on conclusory assertions that the witnesses possess relevant knowledge. 

Further, the Court considers sixteen witnesses to be significant in number, and if the witnesses’

knowledge is cumulative, the Court is disinclined to entertain a request to correspond with all

sixteen. 

Regardless, at this juncture Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing with respect to his

witnesses. Therefore, his motions shall be denied. Plaintiff may renew his motion for the Court’s

assistance in facilitating communication with his inmate witnesses, supported by a factual showing

that the witnesses possess relevant knowledge. Because the process can be lengthy and time

consuming, Plaintiff must renew his motion, if at all, within forty-five days from the date of service

of this order. A motion filed after that date will not be considered, unless a timely extension of time

is sought by Plaintiff. 

Finally, under no circumstance will the Court request that Plaintiff be permitted to

correspond with other inmates shielded entirely from review or oversight by prison officials. If

Plaintiff renews his motion and makes the requisite showing, prison officials are entitled to and will

be notified that they may fashion the procedure for the exchange of documents so as to ensure the

safety and security of the institutions at which Plaintiff and the other inmates are housed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motions for a court order allowing

him to communicate with his inmate witnesses, filed September 10, 2009, and January 8, 2010, are

///

///

///

2

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 89 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to renewal within forty-five (45) days from the date of

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 89 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3