Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068-24/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 Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 34; Local Rule 302. This case is set for 

jury trial before the undersigned on May 23, 2017, at 8:15 a.m. 

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at 

trial. (ECF No. 99.) Defendants filed an opposition on January 11, 2017. (ECF No. 102.) 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation by Defendants Dotson, Hernandez, 

Madrigal, and Tucker. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant Hernandez prevented him from 

receiving tires for his wheelchair and issued a false report accusing Plaintiff of threatening her. 

Defendant Madrigal falsely accused Plaintiff of hoarding medication. Defendant Tucker refused to let 

Plaintiff use tools to repair his wheelchair, attempted to prevent Plaintiff from going to canteen, and 

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.T. DOTSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED 

WITNESSES AT TRIAL

[ECF No. 99]

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 9
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

prepared a false rules-violation report. Defendant Dotson served as the Senior Hearing Officer for two 

of Plaintiff’s rules violations, found Plaintiff guilty, and refused to examine inmate-witnesses. 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Allegations of Operative Complaint

Plaintiff is a disabled inmate confined at the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. His disabilities consist of but are not limited to: (1) paraplegia; (2) hearing 

impairment; and (3) medical illness. Plaintiff’s condition requires continuous medical treatment and 

accommodations consisting of but not limited to: (1) hearing aids; (2) braces; (3) cotton bedding; (4) 

dressing/catheter/colostomy supplies; (5) egg-crate mattress; (6) wheelchair; (7) cane; (8) orthopedic 

shoes; (9) hearing and mobility vest; and (10) housing restrictions (i.e., ground floor, lower tier/bottom 

bunk, no stairs in path of travel, no triple bunks and wheelchair accessible cell).

Because of Plaintiff’s medical condition, he is required to ingest powerful prescription 

medications (e.g. methadone).

Plaintiff filed numerous grievances alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent 

to his medical needs by, but not limited to provide/re-fill his prescription medications, reducing his 

medications despite his obvious need for equal or stronger dosages, and failing to bring the so-called 

“conversion cells” up to code set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Plaintiff continuously submitted Health Care Services Request Forms (hereinafter “CDC 

7362s” forms), requesting to be seen by a doctor because of the painful symptoms he was 

experiencing.

Prison officials including the named defendants became irate at Plaintiff’s continuous appeals 

and requests for medical care. They developed a hostile and sinister attitude toward Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s wheelchair tires had worn down exposing the inner tubes. He was unable to roll or 

maneuver himself as a result. Plaintiff complained for weeks to no avail.

When a facility licensed vocational nurse (hereinafter LVN) attempted to assist Plaintiff by 

phoning an ADA coordinator, Defendant Hernandez deliberately intervened and prevented him from 

receiving any tires by instructing the assisting LVN not to contact the ADA coordinator. As a result, 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 9
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

Plaintiff was forced to roll himself on flat tires which caused him to cut and scrape the palms of his 

hands, as well as caused further damage to his rims and tires.

When Plaintiff asked Hernandez why she prevented the assisting LVN from contacting the 

ADA coordinator, she falsely accused him of threatening her. As a direct result of Hernandez’s 

deliberate false allegations, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation. Plaintiff was housed in 

an administrative segregation cell which did not accommodate his paraplegia condition, and he was 

denied all medications.

Upon Plaintiff’s release from administrative segregation, he was re-housed in another so-called 

conversion cell. The converted cell did not meet the design guide standards of the ADA. These cells 

were the direct cause of the injuries Plaintiff sustained by, but not limited to: (1) improper door width 

(Plaintiff scraped and injured his hands against the door frame forcing himself in-and-out of the cell; 

(2) bunk design (the bunks are less than six-feet long and Plaintiff is six-feet, two and one-half inches 

tall causing him to constantly injure his head on the wall and metal locker); and (3) space (Plaintiff 

cannot maneuver while in his wheelchair). 

The converted cell did not contain a desk, and the sink design made getting water or simply 

washing Plaintiff’s face extremely difficult.

On October 8, 2011, Plaintiff appeared before Senior Hearing Officer (SHO), to answer the 

Rules Violation Report (RVR), issued by Defendant Hernandez.

Defendant Dotson acted as the SHO. Dotson made it abundantly clear that Plaintiff will not 

have an impartial decision-maker at his hearing. Dotson informed Plaintiff that he intended on finding 

him guilty of all charges because he had found him not guilty on a previous unrelated charge, and 

because Plaintiff “likes to file paperwork [grievances].”

Dotson deliberately refused to call any of Plaintiff’s requested prisoner-witnesses, and falsely 

noted in the RVR that Plaintiff did not request any witnesses.

Dotson assessed a credit forfeiture of 30 days and 60 days loss of dayroom, phone, and 

package privileges.

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 9
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

On November 2, 2011, Defendant Madrigal falsely accused Plaintiff of hoarding his morning 

medication as an act of reprisal for filing a staff complaint against Hernandez, who is a friend of 

Madrigal. Madrigal then drafted a false RVR against Plaintiff.

Dotson again acted as the SHO, and informed Plaintiff at the beginning that he will not be 

provided an impartial decision-maker, and that he will be found guilty. Dotson warned Plaintiff that if 

he continues to file grievances, he is going to end up being housed in the Security Housing Unit 

(SHU).

Dotson refused to allow Plaintiff to ask relevant questions pursuant to the California Code of 

Regulations, found Plaintiff guilty, and assessed additional credit/privilege losses. Dotson also 

referred Plaintiff to the Unit Classification Committee (UCC), for Work Group/Privilege and/or SHU 

placement.

Despite the “chilling effect” implemented by the named-defendants, Plaintiff continued to 

grieve the issue of being housed in converted cells that were substandard which directly caused serious 

injuries and/or exacerbated his pre-existing injuries.

On April 3, 2012, Defendant Tucker became irate because an ADA coordinator (Ms. Brown), 

supervised Plaintiff as he made repairs to his wheelchair using tools specifically designated for that 

purpose. Tucker threatened both the ADA coordinator and Plaintiff.

On June 12, 2012, Tucker attempted to prevent Plaintiff from going to canteen by informing 

him that he will not be allowed to wait on the ADA wheelchair accessibility pad. Plaintiff informed 

Tucker that other wheelchair-bound prisoners were allowed to wait on the medical pad for their 

canteen since canteen was not specifically delivered to anyone except administrative segregation 

prisoners, and because there was no place for mobility impaired prisoners to wait for their canteen.

B. Legal Standard

The uncertainty regarding whether or not the proposed witnesses are willing to testify 

voluntarily does not preclude this Court from ordering their transportation. Rather, in determining 

whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of his proposed witnesses, factors to be taken 

into consideration include (1) whether the inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of 

the case, (2) the security risks presented by the inmate’s presence, and (3) the expense of 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 9
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

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). 

Plaintiff requests the attendance of following four inmate-witnesses: (1) William Milton, 

CDCR #P38650; (2) Curtis Jackson, CDCR #J88116; (2) Byron Myers, CDCR #E26677; and (4) Leo 

Mepham, CDCR #B52359. In support of each witnesses proposed testimony, Plaintiff submits his 

own declaration declaring the relevance of such testimony. 

Defendants oppose the attendance of all four witnesses because Plaintiff has failed to provide 

facts supporting his conclusion that these witnesses have relevant and non-cumulative information and 

the proposed testimony relating to events that are not part of the lawsuit is irrelevant. 

The Court initially notes that although Defendants submit that Plaintiff has indicated these 

witnesses are unwilling to testify, such determination appears to be made because Plaintiff has been 

unable to obtain a present willingness to testify due to the fact that the inmates have been transferred, 

something Plaintiff has no control over. Thus, the Court finds that this factor does not weigh against 

the attendance of the inmate-witnesses. 

1. Inmate William Milton

Plaintiff contends that inmate William Milton was an eye and ear witness on September 20, 

2011, when Defendant Licensed Vocational Nurse Hernandez alleged that Plaintiff yelled and insulted 

her from his cell C2-108, as Milton was housed in cell C2-107. 

Milton was called as a witness on October 12, 2011 for the hearing conducted by Defendant 

Dotson. Plaintiff and Dotson were discussing why Dotson refused to allow Milton as a witness. 

Milton was present with Plaintiff each time he approached the facility C medical window on 

November 2, 2011, when Defendant Madrigal falsely accused Plaintiff of several illegal actions of 

misconduct. 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 9
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

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to explain the foundation for his conclusion about what 

inmate Milton heard, and fails to indicate what relevant testimony these inmates would have to offer 

regarding any event on the day in question. 

Based on the allegations in the operative complaint as a whole and Plaintiff’s representations

(which are more than vague conclusions), the Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden in 

demonstrating that inmate William Milton has relevant firsthand knowledge that may substantially 

further the resolution of this case against Defendants, and the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for 

attendance of inmate Milton at trial. 

2. Inmate Curtis Jackson

Plaintiff contends he has firsthand knowledge that inmate Curtis Jackson was an eye and ear 

witness on September 20, 2011, when Defendant Hernandez claims Plaintiff was yelling out of his cell 

C2-108, as Jackson was housed in cell C2-109. During this time, Jackson was in line for his 

medication and was immediately next to Plaintiff. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to explain the foundation for his conclusion about what 

inmate Jackson heard, and fails to indicate what relevant testimony these inmates would have to offer 

regarding any event on the day in question. The Court agrees. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that otherwise relevant testimony may be excluded on 

the grounds of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Courts 

have broad discretion “to limit the number of witnesses on a particular point to avoid cumulative 

evidence,” Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2005), but they must 

not “sacrifice justice in the name of efficiency,” Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 

2001). “As a general rule, evidence may not be excluded solely to avoid delay.” General Signal 

Corp. v. MCI Telecommmuncations Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, “[u]nder Rule 

403, the court should consider the probative value of the proffered evidence and balance it against the 

harm of delay. General Signal Corp., 66 F.3d at 1509-1510.

Plaintiff has not met his burden in demonstrating that inmate Curtis Jackson has relevant firsthand knowledge that may substantially further the resolution of this case against Defendants, as 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 9
7

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

Jackson’s testimony is merely cumulative of the proposed testimony by inmate Milton and Plaintiff 

himself. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for attendance of inmate Jackson. 

3. Inmate Byron Myers

Plaintiff contends he has firsthand knowledge that inmate Byron Myers was an eye and ear 

witness on November 2, 2011 and the following days, when Defendant Madrigal falsely claims 

Plaintiff violated rules and made comments at the facility C medication window. Plaintiff asked 

Myers (and Milton) to stay close whenever Plaintiff went to the window because he already knew of 

Defendants “conspiracy” to retaliate against Plaintiff. 

Further, inmate Myers was witness to comments made by Defendant Dotson at the program 

office when Dotson had the hearing on November 13, 2011. Myers was outside the program office for 

personal reasons. 

Myers was a witness on June 12, 2012, when Defendant Tucker assaulted Plaintiff on the 

facility C medical pad awaiting canteen. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff concludes, without foundational facts, that inmate Myers was 

“witness” to comments made by Lieutenant Dotson. Defendants argue that Myers has no firsthand 

knowledge relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Dotson because Myers did not personally attend the 

disciplinary hearing conducted by Dotson. 

Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Tucker 

has been dismissed, but Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Tucker remains and the June 12, 2012

incident is one instance of retaliation by Tucker. However, Plaintiff’s allegations amount to more than 

the mere rules violation hearing, as Plaintiff alleges comments were made by Dotson, overheard by 

Myers, which potentially suggests the actions were done in retaliation. Accordingly, based on the 

representations presented by Plaintiff, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmate 

Myers. 

4. Inmate Leo Mepham

Plaintiff has actual and firsthand knowledge that inmate Leo Mepham was an eye and ear 

witness on November 2, 2011 and the following days, at the facility C medication window when 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Defendant Madrigal claims Plaintiff violated rules and made comments. Mepham was at the clinic to 

address his medical needs. 

Mepham was a witness on April 3, 2012, in front of program office, when Defendant Tucker 

refused to let Plaintiff use tools because Plaintiff “files to[o] many complaints.” 

Mepham was a witness in May 2012, when Defendant Dotson had Plaintiff put in 

administrative segregation unit for filing CDC 1824s-accommodation forms. Mepham heard officers 

tell Plaintiff he was going to the hole for upsetting Dotson with complaints. 

Mepham was witness on June 12, 2012, when Defendant Tucker assaulted Plaintiff on the 

facility C medical pad awaiting canteen. Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff’s excessive force 

claim against Defendant Tucker has been dismissed, but Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Tucker 

remains, and the June 12, 2012, is one instance of retaliation by Tucker. 

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has changed his story after discovery has closed is not 

persuasive. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations in the operative complaint and the response to Defendant 

Fisher’s interrogatory Number 18, it is not clear that Plaintiff was required to disclose such statement 

and such statement is consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint. In addition, Defendants 

fail to present a showing of prejudice and/or unfair surprise. Further, there is no showing that Plaintiff 

was asked, but failed to disclose, the identity of any witness with regard to his retaliation claim against 

Defendant Tucker. Defendants citation to Goins v. Cty of Merced, No. 1:13-CV-1245-AWI SKO, 

2015 WL 3991628, at *7 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2015), is inapposite. In Goins, the plaintiff failed to 

disclose discoverable information in support of alleged physical injuries, and later after the close of 

discovery attempted to introduce medical records to support a finding of physical injury. Here, 

Plaintiff has not failed to disclose the retaliatory actions against Defendant Tucker, and Plaintiff 

merely submits proposed testimony by an inmate witness in support of his claim. Moreover, any 

testimony by inmate Mepham will not necessarily bolster Plaintiff’s theory of the case because 

Mepham can only testify to that for which he has firsthand knowledge. 

Further, Plaintiff’s complaint and interrogatory response make reference to the alleged 

retaliatory action of Dotson placing Plaintiff in administrative segregation and/or security housing unit 

in retaliation. (See Compl. at ¶ 27; ECF No. 57-4 at 50.) It was specifically alleged in the complaint 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 9
9

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

that Dotson warned Plaintiff that if he continues to file grievances, he is going to end up being housed 

in the Security Housing Unit (SHU). (Compl. at ¶ 27.) 

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmates William Milton, Byron Myers, and Leo 

Mepham is granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of inmate Curtis Jackson is denied; and

3. The Court will issue the necessary transportation orders in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 108 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 9