Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-31/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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING 

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF 

INCARCERATED WITNESS SOLOMON

(ECF No. 99)

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 jury trial on January 23, 2023, before Magistrate Judge 

Stanley A. Boone. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 

motion for attendance of incarcerated witness Solomon, filed October 25, 2023. 

Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of 

incarcerated witness Solomon, but request that discovery be re-opened for the limited purpose 

deposition Solomon prior to trial, recognizing that if they are unable to depose Solomon such 

would not be cause to continue the trial date. (ECF No. 105.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order 

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 106 Filed 11/15/23 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

2

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. 

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.2008) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 

show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks 

and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation ...” of that which was already 

considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of his proposed 

witnesses, 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, and (3) the expense of transportation and security, and (4) whether the 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. 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). 

Based on Plaintiff’s representation and Defendants’ non-opposition, that inmate Keawon 

Solomon is “an eye and ear” witness to the incident in question, Plaintiff’s motion shall be 

granted. In light of this ruling, the Court will re-open discovery for the limited purpose of 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 106 Filed 11/15/23 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

3

allowing Defendants to depose inmate Solomon if able to do so prior to trial.1 However, the 

January 23, 2023, jury trial date is firm and will not be continued under any circumstances related 

to deposing and/or transporting inmate Solomon to the trial.2 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on October 25, 2023 (ECF No. 99), is 

granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness, Keawon Solomon, is 

granted; 

3. Defendants may depose inmate Solomon, if available to do prior to the jury trial on 

January 23, 2023; and

4. The Court will issue any necessary writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for the 

attendance of inmate Solomon in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

In considering whether to grant a motion to amend the scheduling order and re-open discovery, the court is to 

consider: “1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be 

prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the 

court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the 

district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” City of Pomona v. SQM N. 

Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 

F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997)). Upon consideration of these 

factors, the Court finds good cause to allow Defendants to depose inmate Solomon, if available to do so, prior to trial 

in this matter. 

2

“Based upon publicly available information, defense counsel anticipates that Mr. Solomon will return to the custody 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) before trial of this matter commences.” 

(ECF No. 105 at 2.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 106 Filed 11/15/23 Page 3 of 3