Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-26/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH J. PETILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01401-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL, DENYING MOTION FOR 

WITNESS, AND OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS

(ECF Nos. 88, 90)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This case is currently set for a status conference on October 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., to 

discuss the setting of a new jury trial date. (ECF No. 86.) 

On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, motion to call witness at trial, 

and objections to the “non-hearing” ruling on the motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 88, 89, 90.)

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel/Objections to Non-Hearing Ruling on Motions in Limine

1. Motion to Compel

In the motion to compel, Plaintiff contends that he never received a copy of Defendants’ 

motions in limine, filed on August 9, 2023. Plaintiff also contends that he never received a copy 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 91 Filed 09/27/23 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

2

of Defendants’ opposition to his motions in limine, filed on August 22, 2023. Plaintiff claims 

that he was to be given any materials the Defendants intend to present by way of their motions in 

limine. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff references that Defendants intent to offer several Rules 

Violation Reports. 

Plaintiff is advised that Defendants were not required to provide him with any materials 

they intended to present by way of their motions in limine, and Defendant did not present any 

materials along with their motions in limine. (ECF No. 71.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel Defendants to provide materials referenced in their motions in limine is denied. 

2. Objections to Non-Hearing on Motions in Limine

By way of separate filing, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s “non-hearing” on the motions in 

limine. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff submits that he was supposed to attend the motions in limine 

hearing on September 6, 2023. However, Plaintiff argues the motions in limine were postponed 

to September 11, 2023, and although a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was issued for 

Plaintiff’s appearance on September 11, 2023, he was not called to appear for the hearing. (ECF 

No. 90.) Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 

On August 29, 2023, the Court vacated the September 6, 2023, motions in limine hearing 

and issued a ruling on the parties’ motions in limine. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff submits that the 

Court’s August 29, 2023 order only vacated the September 6, 2023, motions in limine hearing 

and the motions in limine were to be “revised” on September 11, 2023. (ECF No. 90.) 

Plaintiff is incorrect. On August 29, 2023, the Court issued a final ruling on the parties’ 

motions in limine and vacated the motions in limine hearing set for September 6, 2023. (ECF No. 

80.) On September 5, 2023, the Court set a status hearing on September 11, 2023, to address the 

October 3, 2023, jury trial date, given the fact that Plaintiff was “out to court” and in the custody 

of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (ECF Nos. 78, 79, 81, 82.) On this same date, 

the Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Plaintiff’s appearance at the 

September 11, 2023, status hearing. (ECF. 83.) As stated in the Court’s September 12, 2023, 

order, the Court held the September 11, 2023 hearing, but Plaintiff did not appear, even though 

Defendants represented to the Court that the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was served on 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 91 Filed 09/27/23 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

3

the Los Angeles County Jail on September 5 and September 7, 2023. At the September 11, 2023, 

the Court did not “revise” the motions in limine order or even discuss such filings and order. The 

sole issue discussed at the September 11, 2023, hearing was whether the October 3, 2023 should 

be vacated and potential dates to reschedule the trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are 

overruled. 

B. Motion to Call Witness at Trial

Plaintiff seeks to subpoena inmate Keawon Solomon, Inmate No. 6657384, as a witness 

at the jury trial. Plaintiff submits inmate Solomon has agreed to testify voluntarily. Plaintiff’s 

motion must be denied. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. On June 1, 2023, pursuant to the 

Court’s trial scheduling order, Plaintiff filed a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses at 

trial. (ECF No. 63.) On July 6, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice, to 

re-filing on or July 27, 2023. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff contends that he did not receive the Court’s 

July 6, 2023, order until a month or so later, i.e. August 6, 2023. However, Plaintiff did not refile the instant motion until September 14, 2023-with application of the mailbox rule.1

 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness Solomon is untimely, 

particularly given that the Court issued the initial trial scheduling order on May 8, 2023. See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.1992) (“A scheduling order is 

not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered ....”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Furthermore, although Plaintiff submits that inmate Solomon has agreed to testify 

voluntarily, an inmate “cannot come to court unless the Court orders the warden or other custodial 

to permit the witness to be transported to court.” (ECF No. 59 at 6:4-6.) Plaintiff was advised that 

he must file a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, stating the name, address, and prison 

identification number of each such witness, accompanied by declarations by Plaintiff or the 

witnesses, showing that each witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts. (ECF No. 59 at 7.) 

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the Court 

deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 2010); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits 

filed by pro se prisoners”). 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 91 Filed 09/27/23 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

4

Plaintiff was also informed that the declaration must show that the prospective witness was an 

eyewitness or ear-witness to relevant facts, and must be specific about the incident at issue in this 

case, including when and where it occurred, who was present, and how the prospective witness 

happened to be in a position to see or hear what occurred at the time it occurred. (Id. at 7-8) 

While Plaintiff submits the attendance of inmate Solomon will be voluntarily, he does not 

provide a declaration or sufficient factual information to determine whether this inmate was 

actually an eye and ear-witness to the incident alleged to have occurred on July 18, 2018. Simply 

stating that an individual was an eye and ear-witness is insufficient. As with Plaintiff’s prior 

motion, the current motion is not specific about any incident witnessed by inmate Solomon, when 

and where it occurred, who was present, and how Solomon happened to be in a position to see or 

to hear what occurred at the time it occurred. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmate witness Solomon must be 

denied. 

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed September 22, 2023 (ECF No. 88) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to call a witness to testify at trial (ECF No. 89) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s objections to the written decision on the motions in limine (ECF No. 90) 

are overruled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 91 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 4