Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-18/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.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR INCARCERATED WITNESS, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 63)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

This case is set for jury trial on October 3, 2023.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of an incarcerated 

witness, filed June 2, 2023. (ECF No. 63.) Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, any 

opposition was due on or before July 3, 2023. (ECF No. 59.) No opposition has been filed and 

the time to do so has passed. 

I.

DISCUSSION

The uncertainty regarding whether or not the proposed witnesses are willing to testify 

voluntarily does not preclude this Court from ordering their transportation. Rather, 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 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 64 Filed 07/06/23 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

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). 

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of inmate Solomon. Plaintiff contends that “Solon was & is 

a key witness who saw/heard the entire incident & use of force used by Def’s on Plaintiff....” 

(ECF No. 63 at 1.) Plaintiff submits that he does not know the CDCR identification number for 

inmate Solomon and he is not aware of his current incarceration status or location. Plaintiff also 

does not provide the first name for inmate Solomon. 

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.) Plaintiff was 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 requests the attendance of inmate Solomon who will not appear 

voluntarily, he does not provide the first name of inmate Solomon, his location, his prison 

identification, 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. Plaintiff’s 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 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 64 Filed 07/06/23 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

time it occurred. Accordingly, without sufficient information, the Court cannot determine that 

inmate Solomon has actual knowledge of relevant facts or that transporting this witness would 

not be too dangerous or too costly. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmate 

Solomon shall be denied, without prejudice. 

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not submitted a motion which 

complies with the requirements of the scheduling order. The Court will not issue an order to 

transport any of Plaintiff's prospective witnesses to trial unless it is satisfied that the prospective 

witnesses are positively identified and incarcerated, have actual knowledge of relevant facts, and 

are willing to testify at trial. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness shall is denied; 

2. On or before July 27, 2023, Plaintiff may renew the motion providing the 

required information, if he so wishes; and

3. Any opposition shall be filed within seven (7) days after the filing of any renewed 

motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 64 Filed 07/06/23 Page 3 of 3