Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-50/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

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

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Munoz, Clausings, and Omos for excessive force in pepper spraying Plaintiff in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering 

that Plaintiff’s property be removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back into a contaminated 

cell without means to decontaminate from the pepper spray in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 

against Defendants Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. This matter is set for jury trial on May 20, 2014.

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff moved for the attendance of the following incarcerated 

witnesses: (1) Leon Endicott (D-04548, Pelican Bay State Prison): (2) Ruben Guerrero (H-38157, 

CSATF); (3) Michael Torres (P-98683, CCI-Tehachapi); and (4) Jack Morris (C-06409, Pelican Bay 

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED 

WITNESSES

(ECF No. 293)

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 336 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 5
2

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

State Prison). Defendants opposed the motion on February 13, 2014. Plaintiff replied on February 27, 

2014. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

A. Legal Standard

In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, 

the Court considers the following factors: (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) 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).

B. Discussion

1. Inmate Leon Endicott

Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that Inmate Endicott is an eye and ear witness to his 

claims. Plaintiff reportedly communicated with Inmate Endicott and received a declaration from him. 

Inmate Endicott reportedly stated he would testify that on February 28, 2007, while in the ASU at 

SATF, Inmate Endicott and other inmates, including Plaintiff, organized a peaceful protest. Inmate 

Endicott also will testify regarding his extraction, the use of chemical spray, his reaction to the 

chemical agents, his decontamination and the deprivation of his toothpaste, soap, toilet paper, clothing, 

bedding, mattress and cleaning supplies. Plaintiff did not include a copy of the declaration with his 

motion.

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s declaration contains inadmissible 

hearsay and that Inmate Endicott’s testimony regarding the physical effects of exposure to chemical 

agents is inadmissible hearsay and lacking foundation. Defendants also contend that the physical 

effects on Inmate Endicott or the treatment of Inmate Endicott is not relevant to this case. 

Defendants’ objections are not warranted. There is no indication that Inmate Endicott’s 

testimony will encompass only inadmissible hearsay. Further, Inmate Endicott’s testimony does not 

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 336 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 5
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

appear wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a 

fact more or less probable and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Inmate Endicott’s testimony regarding the extraction, decontamination and subsequent taking of 

certain articles and items may corroborate Plaintiff’s own claims in this action. Accordingly, the 

Court shall grant Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate Endicott. 

2. Inmate Ruben Guerrero

Plaintiff reports that the Court assisted him in obtaining permission to correspond with Inmate 

Guerrero. Inmate Guerrero reportedly provided Plaintiff with a letter and declaration agreeing to 

testify voluntarily as to the events that he saw and heard during the February 28, 2007 cell extractions 

and in the days that followed. In particular, Inmate Guerrero will testify that he participated in the 

peaceful protest, Defendants Munoz, Clausings and Omos used the X-10 BRD, Inmate Guerrero and 

his cellmate agreed to cuff up and Defendants Munoz, Clausings, and Omos subjected them to a slow 

body search, keeping them exposed to the chemicals. Inmate Guerrero also will testify regarding his 

decontamination, the subsequent removal of his property from the cell and the failure to 

decontaminate his cell or provide him the means to decontaminate. 

Plaintiff intends to elicit from Inmate Guerrero that Defendants Reynoso, Hacker and Hutchins 

told inmates that they were going to have to live in the allegedly contaminated cell for ten days as 

punishment and they would not get anything to lie on, walk on, change into or decontaminate with. 

Plaintiff also reports that he will need Inmate Guerrero’s anticipated testimony that there is nothing in 

the back of the pod to connect a water hose in order to counter Defendants’ claim that they brought a 

water hose from the back to decontaminate the cells. Plaintiff did not submit a copy of the declaration 

with his motion. 

Defendants again argue that Plaintiff’s declaration contains inadmissible hearsay. Defendants 

also argue that Inmate Guerrero’s testimony that he and his cellmate voluntarily agreed to cuff up prior 

to the cell extraction and were subjected to a slow body search is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

As with Inmate Endicott, Defendants objections are not warranted. Inmate Guerrero’s 

testimony does not appear wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Evidence is relevant if it has any 

tendency to make a fact more or less probable and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. 

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 336 Filed 03/12/14 Page 3 of 5
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

Fed. R. Evid. 401. Inmate Guerrero’s testimony regarding the extraction, decontamination and 

subsequent taking of certain articles and items may corroborate Plaintiff’s own claims in this action. 

Additionally, Inmate Guerrero also may provide testimony to counter Defendants’ claims regarding 

use of a hose to decontaminate the cells. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate 

Guerrero shall be granted. 

3. Inmate Michael Torres

Plaintiff reports that the Court assisted him in obtaining permission to correspond with Inmate 

Torres. Inmate Torres reportedly provided Plaintiff with a declaration and agreed to testify voluntarily 

on Plaintiff’s behalf. Inmate Torres also indicated that he would be paroling and would need to be 

subpoenaed to testify. Plaintiff does not know if Inmate Torres has been paroled.1 

Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that Inmate Torres will testify that he was 

incarcerated in the ASU at SATF on February 28, 2007, in cell 120, which was one cell away from 

Plaintiff’s cell. Inmate Torres will testify that inmates decided to stage a peaceful protest requesting 

that Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso and Hacker do their jobs and address inmate complains about 

abuse from other prison officials. Inmate Torres also will testify that Defendants Munoz, Clausings, 

Omos, Paz, Morse, Reynoso, Hacker, Roberson, and Officers Daley and Perez approached his cell and 

sprayed it with the X-10 BRD. After being removed and taken to the shower, Defendants Munoz, 

Clausings, Omos, and Officers Daley and Perez removed all the property and basic necessities from 

the cell and did not decontaminate the cell. Inmate Torres and his cellmate were returned to a 

contaminated cell. Inmate Torres also intends to testify regarding what he heard during Plaintiff’s 

extraction, as well as events occurring in the days after the extraction. Plaintiff also wishes to use 

Inmate Torres’ testimony to discredit Defendants’ claim that they used a hose to decontaminate 

Plaintiff’s cell. 

Defendants argue that Inmate Torres’ testimony is either inadmissible hearsay or irrelevant to 

Plaintiff’s claims. As with the prior inmates, Defendants’ argument is not warranted. Inmate Torres’ 

testimony is relevant as it may corroborate Plaintiff’s claims regarding the extraction and 

 

1

Information available to the Court as of March 11, 2014, indicates that Inmate Torres remains incarcerated. 

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 336 Filed 03/12/14 Page 4 of 5
5

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

decontamination. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate 

Torres shall be granted. 

4. Inmate Jack Morris

Plaintiff reports that Inmate Morris has been confined in several ASU cells similar to the one at 

SATF. Plaintiff expects Inmate Morris to testify that he has witnessed the use of chemical weapons, 

including the X-10 BRD, and the length of time necessary to decontaminate a cell.

Defendants correctly argue that Inmate Morris’ proposed testimony is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s 

own experience because Inmate Morris was not housed at SATF and was not an eye or ear witness to 

the events involving Plaintiff. Further, Inmate Morris cannot testify as a lay witness about the use and 

decontamination of chemical agents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate 

Morris shall be denied.

C. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmates Endicott, Guerrero and Torres is 

GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmate Morris is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 336 Filed 03/12/14 Page 5 of 5