Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONZO TOLBERT, 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

)

D. PEELER, )

)

Defendant )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5254 AWI SMS P

ORDER CONCERNING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR THE ATTENDANCE 

OF WITNESSES

(Documents #57, #64, #66, #67, 

 #68, & #69)

BACKGROUND

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Alfonzo Tolbert’s complaint, filed July 1, 2003,

against Defendant Peeler. Plaintiff Tolbert, an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections, brings this civil rights action against Defendant Peeler for alleged use

of excessive force in violation of Plaintiff Tolbert’s Eighth Amendment rights. The action is set

for trial to be held on February 27, 2007.

On December 21, 2006, January 3, 2007, and January 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed

motions concerning witnesses. The issue of Plaintiff’s witnesses was also addressed by the

court at the January 3, 2007 telephonic trial confirmation hearing. This order resolves these

witness issues.

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 6
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

DISCUSSION

A. Incarcerated Witnesses

As to Plaintiff Tolbert’s motions concerning incarcerated witnesses, the

Scheduling Order filed August 30, 2006 informed Plaintiff Tolbert the procedures for calling

incarcerated witnesses and informed Plaintiff Tolbert that a motion regarding incarcerated

witnesses must be filed with his pretrial statement. Plaintiff Tolbert failed to file any such

motion. However, on January 5, 2007, the court received a motion requesting the court bring

three incarcerated witnesses to trial. In his motion, Plaintiff states that the absence of an inmate

who was assisting him and prison lock-downs prevented him from filing his motion earlier. 

Because these witnesses were listed on Plaintiff’s pretrial statement, the court has postponed the

trial, the court is allowing Defendant to add a witness, and in the interests of justice, the court

will consider Plaintiff’s late motion.

Plaintiff requests the presence of Inmate Clark, CDC #K-68510. According to

Plaintiff’s declaration, Inmate Clark was present during the incident of excessive force. It

appears that Inmate Clark also heard Defendant allegedly threaten Plaintiff prior to the

classification hearing. The court finds that Inmate Clark’s proposed testimony is relevant

because he is an eye-witness to both the previous confrontation – which may provide a motive

for the alleged use of force – and the actual use of force. Accordingly, the court will order

Inmate Clark transported for trial.

The parties are informed that it is necessary to grant Plaintiff’s motion to allow for

the transpiration of Inmate Clark at this time. The CDC needs several weeks to arrange for

transport, and by the time the court could rule on any motion concerning the admissibility of

Inmate Clark’s testimony, it might be too late to order Inmate Clark transported. Defendant may

still file a motion in limine attempting to preclude part or all of Inmate Clark’s testimony. 

Plaintiff is advised that some or all of Inmate Clark’s testimony may still be excluded. The court

will rule on any motions in limine concerning Inmate Clark the morning of trial. Thus, while the

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 6
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

court will order Inmate Clark transported for trial, Plaintiff is not guaranteed that he will be

allowed to testify to all subjects Plaintiff may like to elicit testimony regarding. 

The court also informs Inmate Clark and all parties that it is not this court’s policy

to transport an inmate witness unless that inmate witness is currently willing to come to court to

testify. In this case, Plaintiff states Inmate Clark told him in 2000 or 2001 that he was willing to

testify, but Plaintiff has not been in contact with Inmate Clark for some six years. Because

Inmate Clark has been transferred to another institution and in light of prison regulations

prohibiting most contact between inmates, the court will not require Plaintiff to personally

confirm that Inmate Clark is still willing to testify. Rather, the court will serve a courtesy copy

this order and the Amended Pretrial Statement on Inmate Clark. If Inmate Clark is not willing

to testify in this action, Inmate Clark should contact the court, indicating the case name and case

number of this action, state that he does not wish to be transported to trial, and ask that any

transportation orders be vacated. Any request to stop transportation should be filed as soon as

possible to avoid any unnecessary transportation.

Plaintiff also requests that the court transport Inmate Devon, CDC #E-43780 to

court to testify. Plaintiff states that Inmate Devon heard Defendant Peeler verbally threaten

Plaintiff prior to the use of excessive force. Inmate Devon’s testimony about prior threats to

Plaintiff that may explain a later use of force appears to be relevant to this action. However,

Inmate Clark can also testify about these alleged threats. The court declines to transport Inmate

Devon to testify because his testimony would be duplicative and cumulative of Inmate Clark’s

testimony.

Finally, Plaintiff asks that the court transport Inmate Brown, CDC #K-40403 to

testify. Plaintiff states that Inmate Brown will testify about an incident when Defendant Peeler

assaulted Inmate Brown. Inmate Brown’s testimony is precluded by the Federal Rules of

Evidence. Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: “Evidence of other

crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 At the hearing, Litigation Coordinator Steve Albritton suggested that the money orders

1

for witness fees be made out to “General Fund” because CDC employees would be paid by the

State for their time. Based on the Local Rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has no

authority to allow Plaintiff to make the checks out to someone other than the witnesses. As such,

the checks need to be made out to the witnesses, and CCI or any other state agency paying CDC

employees for their time and travel, will have to recover the money from the CDC employees.

4

action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof

of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or

accident . . . .” The purpose of Inmate Brown’s testimony about another incident in which

Defendant Peeler assaulted a different inmate would be to argue to the jury that because

Defendant Peeler assaulted Inmate Brown, Defendant Peeler also assaulted Plaintiff. Such

testimony and argument is prohibited. The issue in this action is one of credibility – i.e. who is

telling the truth about Defendant Peeler’s use of force on Plaintiff – and there is no showing that

the incident concerning Inmate Brown will assist in showing Defendant Peeler’s motive, intent,

plan, identity, or absence of mistake. Other alleged “bad acts” by Defendant Peeler are simply

not admissible regardless of how relevant Plaintiff believes they are. Because Inmate Brown’s

testimony is not admissible, the court will not transport him for trial. 

Non - Incarcerated Witnesses

Plaintiff has also filed motions concerning non-incarcerated witnesses. For nonincarcerated witnesses who are willing to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff need only tell them the date

and time of trial and nor further actions are necessary. 

If a non-incarcerated witness is not willing to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff Tolbert

must immediately provide the court with the name of such witnesses and a declaration, signed

under penalty of perjury, that Plaintiff Tolbert has the required funds to pay each witness coming

from CCI $170.83 and pay any witness coming from Las Vegas, Nevada $385.42. Upon receipt

of the witnesses’ names and a declaration confirming an ability and willingness to pay the

witness fees, the court will fill out subpoenas and return them to Plaintiff. Plaintiff must then

effect service of both the subpoenas ad testificandum and checks made payable to each witness. 

1

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 6
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

 The court requests that Litigation Coordinator Steve Albritton assist in service as 2

appropriate.

5

Plaintiff must ensure that each witness is personally served with the subpoena ad testificandum,

to be provided to Plaintiff by the court once the court is notified of the witnesses’ names. 

Plaintiff may not effect personal service himself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Service may be

effected by any person who is not a party to this action and who is at least eighteen years old. Id. 

 Each subpoena must be accompanied by the witness fee and mileage for one day, calculated by

the court to be $170.83 for each witness located at CCI and $385.42 for each witness located in

Las Vegas, Nevada. The court will provide Plaintiff with a copy of Rule 45 along with this

order. Plaintiff must ensure each witness is served by January 17, 2007. Plaintiff is directed to

work with Litigation Coordinator Steve Albritton as necessary to assist in service. 

2

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmate Clark, CDC #K68510, at the

February 27, 2007 trial is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmate Devon, CDC #E43780 and Inmate

Brown, CDC #K40403, is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately provide the court with the names of nonincarcerated witnesses and a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, that

Plaintiff Tolbert has the required funds to pay each witness coming from CCI 

$170.83 and pay any witness coming from Las Vegas, Nevada $385.42. 

4. Upon receipt of the non-incarcerated witnesses’ names and a declaration

confirming an ability to pay witness fees, the court will fill out subpoenas and

return them to Plaintiff;

5. Upon receipt of the subpoensa from the court, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to ensure

that each witness is personally served with the subpoena ad testificandum and a

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

check or money order for the witness fee and mileage for one day, calculated by

the court to be $170.83 for each witness located at CCI and $385.42 for each

witness located in Las Vegas, Nevada, by January 17, 2007; 

6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Rule 45

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff must ensure each witness is

served by January 17, 2007;

7. The court requests that Litigation Coordinator Steve Albritton assist as

appropriate with Plaintiff’s compliance with this order and the service of nonincarcerated witnesses; 

8. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to fax a copy of this order and the

Amended Pretrial Order to Litigation Coordinator Steve Albritton, with a request

that he immediately give to Plaintiff;

9. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

the Amended Pretrial Order on:

Bobby Ray Clark III, CDC # K-68510

Kern Valley State Prison, Delano.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 01/09/07 Page 6 of 6