Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06364/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06364-37/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

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUIZ, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06364-OWW DLB PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

(Doc. 193)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed February 9, 2004, against defendants Ruiz, Wilbur, Canfield, Fuhlrodt and Rabe for

violation of the Eighth Amendment. This matter is set for jury trial on May 27, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

On May 2, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to sections VI through XIX of the Pre-Trial Order

issued April 24, 2008. (Docs. 193, 185). Plaintiff states that during the telephonic trial confirmation

hearing held April 18, 2008, he was the process of having his medication dosage increased, and that

the court should have granted his motions for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff requests that the PreTrial Order be stricken and/or the trial rescheduled.

During the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, plaintiff agreed that four of his six proposed

inmate witnesses were not required at trial, as their testimony would be duplicative. Shortly after

the hearing, plaintiff moved for the attendance of all six inmates at trial, stating that their testimony

would be relevant to prove state of mind. (Doc. 182). Plaintiff’s motion was denied by order dated

Case 1:03-cv-06364-LJO -DLB Document 194 Filed 05/09/08 Page 1 of 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

2

April 30, 2008. (Doc. 192). Plaintiff now objects, inter alia, to Section VII of the Pre-Trial Order

listing plaintiff’s witnesses. To the extent that plaintiff’s objections to the Pre-Trial Order may be

construed as a renewed motion for the attendance of proposed inmate witnesses E. Johnson, G.

Jones, White, and Smith, plaintiff’s motion is again denied, and on the same grounds.

With respect to plaintiff’s objections to the remainder of the Pre-Trial Order, the court noted

in its previous order denying plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel that plaintiff appeared

lucid and was capable of thinking and expressing himself clearly throughout the almost one hour

telephonic trial confirmation hearing. (Doc. 192). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s requests that the pre-trial order be stricken and that the trial be

rescheduled are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06364-LJO -DLB Document 194 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 2