Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00823-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

ROBERT D. MIX,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

REQUESTING NEW PRISONER 

WITNESSES

(ECF No. 110)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 16, 2016 motion requesting the 

attendance of new detained witnesses at trial (ECF No. 110), and an addendum thereto 

(ECF No. 112). Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF NO. 113.) Plaintiff filed a reply.

(ECF No. 118.) The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendants Cunningham and Saloum on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment failure to 

protect claims. The allegations arise out of an April 27, 2013 incident in which Plaintiff 

was attacked by Mr. Jackson, a fellow detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”). Trial 

is set for January 10, 2017. 

Case 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS Document 138 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff filed an amended pretrial statement on September 28, 2016. (ECF No. 

94.) Plaintiff requested the attendance of three civil detainee witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 

51.) This request was granted. (ECF No. 54.) Transportation writs have issued to secure 

the witnesses’ attendance. (ECF Nos. 100-102.) Plaintiff also previously indicated his 

intent to call Michael Shaffran as a voluntary, unincarcerated witness at trial. (ECF No. 

94.) Plaintiff was advised that he bears sole responsibility for ensuring Mr. Shaffran’s 

attendance. (ECF No. 35.) 

The Court issued an amended pretrial order on October 12, 2016, listing Plaintiff’s 

proposed witnesses. (ECF No. 96.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), “[t]he court may modify the order 

issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(e); Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998). In evaluating a motion to 

amend a pretrial order a district court should consider four factors: (1) the degree of 

prejudice or surprise to the defendant if the order is modified; (2) the ability of defendant] 

to cure the prejudice; (3) any impact of modification on the orderly and efficient conduct 

of the trial; and (4) any willfulness or bad faith by the party seeking modification. 

Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Byrd, 137 F.3d at 1132). 

After considering these factors, if “the court determines that refusal to allow a 

modification might result in injustice while allowance would cause no substantial injury to 

the opponent and no more than slight inconvenience to the court, a modification should 

ordinarily be allowed.” United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th 

Cir. 1981). The trial judge may exclude evidence not identified in accordance with the 

pretrial order when the party seeking to introduce the evidence offers no justification for 

delay. Colvin v. United States, 549 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir. 1977). In such a case, 

“[a]ny injustice resulting from exclusion ... comes from [the defaulting party's] own failure 

properly to present his case.” Id.

Case 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS Document 138 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 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

3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Witnesses Shaffran and Tolles

Plaintiff indicates that Mr. Shaffran is no longer willing to testify voluntarily. Plaintiff

instead wishes to call fellow detainee Peter Tolles to testify to statements made by 

Shaffran. These statements relate to alleged retaliation against Plaintiff for pursuing the 

instant action and a “code of silence” at CSH.

The Court concludes that the exclusion of testimony from Mr. Tolles will not result 

in manifest injustice. As Plaintiff has been advised (ECF No. 93), this action does not 

involve claims of retaliation. He provides no argument as to why such statements are 

relevant to the issue of whether Defendants knew, or should have known, that Mr. 

Jackson posed a risk to other patients at CSH. In any event, testimony by Mr. Tolles 

regarding statements made by Mr. Shaffran would constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Accordingly, Mr. Tolles presence at trial would be of no discernable benefit.

Plaintiff’s request to bring Mr. Tolles to trial will be denied.

B. Witnesses Walker and Mendoza

Plaintiff states that these witnesses recently have come forward with first-hand 

knowledge regarding the incident and are willing to testify voluntarily. In support, he 

submits declarations from each potential witness.

Walker’s declaration states as follows. Mr. Jackson was a member and shot caller 

in the Black Guerrilla Family. He was regularly argumentative with other patients in the 

TV Room and disruptive of the TV schedule, but staff was unaware of this conduct. Most 

patients were afraid of Jackson but did not report their fears to staff. Such reports would 

be considered snitching and would result in physical harm from Jackson. At the same 

time, however, Walker states that Jackson stated in front of staff that he was “bad,” 

violent, and a gang shot caller. Staff knew that Jackson played a loud boom box in the 

TV room and must have seen him standing over other, smaller inmates waiving his 

Case 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS Document 138 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 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

4

hands. Walker was present on the date of the incident with Plaintiff and saw Plaintiff and 

Jackson get into a dispute prior to the assault.

Mendoza states that, prior to the incident with Plaintiff, Mendoza himself was 

assaulted by a different African American detainee, and that staff failed to protect him. 

Like Walker, he states that Jackson tried to control the TV room and identified himself as 

a gang shot caller. Jackson threatened patients, but this was not done in the presence of 

staff. Mendoza saw other patients talking with staff and believes they were talking about 

their fears of Jackson. Many patients were afraid of Jackson but would not report their 

fears due to concerns about snitching. Plaintiff sat on Unit Advisory Council meetings 

where staff (other than Defendants) were advised of concerns regarding Jackson’s 

threats and his attempts to control the TV Room.

Plaintiff states that he was previously unaware of these witnesses despite his best 

efforts to ascertain who was in his housing facility at the time of the attack. The Court 

notes that this matter has been pending for three and a half years. Defendants first 

appeared in this action over three years ago. Discovery closed in August 2014, but 

Plaintiff nonetheless was afforded an opportunity to pursue specific late discovery. (See

ECF Nos. 70, 80.) However, prior to the instant motion, Plaintiff did not identify these 

witnesses or suggest that they or others would have information pertinent to his case. 

While the Court does not find Plaintiff’s conduct to be in bad faith, his attempt to identify 

new witnesses less than a month before trial substantially prejudices Defendants. 

Moreover, the Court is not convinced that the exclusion of these witnesses would 

result in manifest injustice. Both proffered witnesses state that staff was unaware of Mr. 

Jackson’s conduct, while simultaneously stating that they were aware of his conduct.

Such testimony is obviously contradictory and does little to advance Plaintiff’s position. 

The witnesses also suggest Defendants should have inferred that Jackson was a threat 

because some staff knew that he played a loud boom box and dominated the television 

Case 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS Document 138 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 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

5

channels. Such testimony would appear to constitute expert testimony that these 

witnesses have not been qualified to provide. See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702.

Accordingly, the request to bring these witnesses to trial will be denied.

IV. JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s motion includes a request for judicial notice. It appears he wishes the 

Court to take judicial notice of the request itself. He also may intend to request judicial 

notice of the declarations accompanying his request.

These matters are not the proper subject of judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

The request will be denied.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice and motion 

requesting new prisoner witnesses (ECF No. 110) is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS Document 138 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 5