Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-19/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

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

THE ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED

WITNESSES

(ECF No. 64)

I. Background

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of the parties’

cross-motions for summary judgment, this action is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed

April 30, 2010, against Defendant Bass for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

This action is set for trial on December 11, 2012. On June 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the

attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on September

13, 2012. 

II. Motion for the Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses

Although Plaintiff’s motion is titled motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses,

Plaintiff brings this motion for the attendance of two incarceratedwitnesses and four formerinmates. 

A. Incarcerated Witnesses

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of inmates Lemons, CDCR No. 49397, and Powell, CDCR No.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 09/27/12 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

F04603. In the second scheduling order, issued June 6, 2012, Plaintiff was informed that his motion 1

for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses “must: (1) state the name, address, and prison

identification number of each such witness; and (2) be accompanied by declarations showing that

each witness is willing to testify and that each witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts.” (Sec.

Scheduling Order 2:15-18, ECF No. 63.) Further, Plaintiff was advised that:

[t]he prospective witness’s actual knowledge of relevant facts can be shown in one

of two ways: (1) if the party has actual firsthand knowledge that the prospective

witness was an eyewitness or an ear-witness to the relevant facts (i.e., if an incident

occurred in Plaintiff’s cell and, at the time, Plaintiff saw that a cellmate was present

and observed the incident, Plaintiff may swear to the cellmate’s ability to testify), the

party himself can swear by declaration under penalty of perjury that the prospective

witness has actual knowledge; or (2) the party can serve and file a declaration signed

under penalty of perjury by the prospective witness in which the witness describes

the relevant facts to which the prospective witness was an eye- or ear-witness.

Whether the declaration is made by the party or by the prospective witness, it must

be specific about the incident, when and where it occurred, who was present, and

how the prospective witness happened to be in a position to see or to hear what

occurred at the time it occurred.

(Id. at 2:27-3:9.)

In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmates, 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 inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of

transportation and security, and (4) whetherthe suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without

prejudice to the cause asserted. Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 2

1983); 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 (1995).

Plaintiff states that inmate Ogoline is incarcerated, however a search of the CDCR Inmate Locator shows

1

that no inmate by the name or CDCR No. provided is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff also states that witness Volerie

has to be subpoenaed as an eye witness, however there is no identification number provided in the motion and the

Court is unable to determine the status of this witness. Further, Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information as to

what Volerie’s testimony would be.

The Court does not have any information regarding the anticipated release date of any of the prospective

2

witnesses. Further, the security risks presented by these inmates does not appear to be beyond those normally

present when bringing inmates to court. Accordingly, these factors shall not be addressed.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 09/27/12 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. Inmate Powell

Inmate Powell, CDCR No. F04603, is currently housed at California State Prison,

Sacramento, and ordering his attendance at trial would require him to be transferred to an institution

closer to the courthouse. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the second scheduling order which

requires that he submit a declaration from the witness or himself showing the witness has actual

knowledge of relevant events. In his motion, Plaintiff states that inmate Powell can attest to the

information in the complaint. Plaintiff’s statement is not specific as to how the witness was

positioned so that he could see or hear what occurred and the Court is unable to determine whether

the testimony he would provide at trial would be beneficial. Therefore, the motion for the attendance

of inmate Powell lacks the specificity required by the scheduling order to obtain the attendance of

incarcerated witnesses. 

II. Inmate Lemons

Inmate Lemons, CDCR No. E49397, is currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison and

ordering his production at trial would require him to be transferred to an institution closer to the

courthouse. Plaintiff states that inmate Lemons could easily over hear the incident and heard

Defendant Bass ranting and raving racial slurs at Plaintiff. Even if inmate Lemons was near Plaintiff

at the time of the incidents alleged and heard Defendant Bass using derogatory language, the

witness’s presence at trial to testify to such does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was subjected to

excessive force, and the testimony will not further resolution of the case. Plaintiff has not described

knowledge possessed by the witness which tends to link the defendant to an act rising to the level

of excessive force. The inconvenience and expense of transporting inmate Lemons is outweighed

by any benefit he could provide at trial. 

B. Former Inmates

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of former inmates Evans, CDCR No. F06497, Boyden, CDCR

No. F54388, Thomas, CDCR No. V39320, and Ogoline, CDCR No. G58175. In the second 3

scheduling order Plaintiff was advised that it is “the responsibility of the party who has secured an

The Court has checked the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) Inmate Locator and these

3

individuals are not currently in the custody of the CDCR.

3

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 09/27/12 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

unincarcerated witness’s voluntary attendance to notify the witness of the time and date of trial. No

action need be sought or obtained from the Court.” (ECF No. 63 at 3:21-23.) Accordingly, Plaintiff

motion for the attendance of former inmates Evans, Boyden, Thomas, and Ogoline is denied.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion has failed to provide the specificity required by the scheduling order to

obtain the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance

of incarcerated witnesses, filed June 18, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 27, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 09/27/12 Page 4 of 4