Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01736/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01736-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA M. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01736-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION

(Doc. 39)

Plaintiff Desha M. Carter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2007. On November 2, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order allowing him to correspond with his inmate witnesses,

and an order requiring Defendants to locate and make available his inmates witnesses for

depositions, oral or by written questions.

As explained in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants have no

legal duty to bear the costs or otherwise assist Plaintiff in deposing witnesses. If this matter goes to

trial, Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to file a motion seeking the attendance of inmate

witnesses at trial. If the Court grants the motion, it will verify the inmates’ current locations and

issue writs requiring their production for trial. However, neither the Court nor Defendants are 1

responsible for setting up depositions for Plaintiff and bearing the costs. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

motion as it pertains to deposing his inmate witnesses is denied.

Of the eleven witnesses listed, Plaintiff provided CDCR numbers for only seven inmates. Plaintiff must

1

provide CDCR numbers in order for the court to locate inmate witnesses.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01736-JLT Document 54 Filed 01/25/10 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

To the extent Plaintiff’s motion is properly construed as seeking assistance from the Court

in facilitating his ability to correspond with his inmate witnesses to obtain declarations and other

discoverable information, his motion is untimely. The discovery phase of this litigation is closed,

and Plaintiff did not previously seek a court order requesting assistance in communicating with his

inmate witnesses to obtain declarations. Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel, which was stricken

for lack of signature without prejudice to renewal within thirty days, sought assistance in deposing

the inmates by written question, an issue that has been resolved.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion regarding his inmate witnesses, filed November

2, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01736-JLT Document 54 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2