Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00455-26/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

DWAYNE MEREDITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. OVERLEY, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00455-MJS (PC)

 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE EXPERT 

WITNESS (ECF No. 145)

 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM 

DISCUSSING THE CASE WITH INMATES

 (ECF No. 115)

 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 129)

 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 NOTICE TO THE 

COURT (ECF No. 118)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

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

Defendants D. Overley, Gamboa, and Benevidez on an Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim. (ECF No. 8.)

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 147 Filed 10/21/15 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

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to substitute expert witness (ECF No. 

145.), Plaintiff’s motions to preclude Defendants from discussing the case and for 

sanctions (ECF Nos. 115 & 129.), and Plaintiff’s September 3, 2015 notice to the Court 

regarding a subpoena for Officer Gaulden, his request for depositions, and his motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 118.). Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion for 

sanctions. (ECF No. 137.) 

II. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE EXPERT WITNESS

Defendants seek to substitute their proposed expert witness Dr. Church with Dr. 

Wang. Defendants argue that Dr. Church lacks sufficient time to assist with the case, 

Dr. Wang is already planning to testify as the custodian of Plaintiff’s medical records, 

allowing Dr. Wang to testify will streamline the trial, and said substitution will not 

prejudice Plaintiff who has not deposed Dr. Church.

The Court finds these reasons compelling and sees no prejudice to Plaintiff if Dr. 

Wang qualifies and is allowed to testify as a medical expert. To the extent that Dr. Wang 

is the witness Defendants planned to call as the custodian of Plaintiff’s medical file, he 

will be permitted to provide expert opinion regarding Plaintiff’s medical condition(s) if 

Defendants lay the proper foundation at trial. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

III. MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM DISCUSSING THE CASE

Pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), Plaintiff seeks 

to preclude Defendants from discussing the case with other inmates. Plaintiff argues 

that Defendant Overley discussed the case with an inmate and told the inmate that he 

wanted Plaintiff to “just die and go away.” Plaintiff argues that this violates CCR 

regulations regarding confidentiality and unlawful influence.

The alleged conduct does not violate either regulation cited by Plaintiff. The 

regulations prohibit inmates from exerting unlawful influence over other inmates, staff or 

visitors, 15 C.C.R. § 3013, and discuss confidential materials, 15 C.C.R. § 3321. The 

facts of the case are part of the public (Court) record and not confidential. To the extent 

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 147 Filed 10/21/15 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

Defendant Overley’s alleged comment is perceived as an attempt to assert unlawful 

influence, the cited regulation does not apply as he is not an inmate. To the extent that 

Plaintiff interprets the alleged comment as a solicitation to other inmates to harm

Plaintiff, no claim related thereto is before the Court in this case. Plaintiff is, in any 

event, no longer in prison and presumably no longer exposed to any such threat. 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IV. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions 

against Defendants and an order denying them the use of any exhibits at trial. Plaintiff 

argues that Defendants failed to respond to his discovery requests for transcripts of the 

staff depositions conducted by Defendants in investigating the case and failed to provide 

him with a copy of their trial exhibits.

Defendants respond that the only deposition taken was of Plaintiff, and he has a 

copy of the transcript of his deposition. The Court has not ordered Defendants to 

provide Plaintiff with copies of any other deposition transcripts. 

Plaintiff indicates he has received a copy of at least some of Defendants trial 

exhibits, but apparently he is missing others. Plaintiff does not describe or identify those 

he has not received. (ECF No. 132.) 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be DENIED, without prejudice to his resuming 

the motion at trial if he shows that he was not provided all the exhibits and if the failure to 

provide, or delay in providing, actually prejudiced him in some way. Defendants thus are 

encouraged to undertake to determine if all of their proposed trial exhibits have actually 

reached Plaintiff and, if not, provide the missing documents forthwith. 

V. SUBPOENA FOR OFFICER GAULDEN

Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court, indicating that he has not yet been able to 

raise the fee required to subpoena his witness Officer Gaulden for trial. He asks that the 

Court subpoena Officer Gaulden and defer the fee until the end of trial. 

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 147 Filed 10/21/15 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

In the Pre-trial Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that he had to comply with all 

applicable procedures for subpoenaing Officer Gaulden, including paying the witness fee 

by August 14, 2015. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff has not complied; he has not arranged for 

payment of the witness fees. The Court cannot issue a subpoena without first receiving 

the necessary funds. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

VI. REQUEST FOR DEPOSITIONS AND RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT

In his September 3, 2015 notice to the Court, Plaintiff seeks transcripts of the 

depositions conducted by Defendants and asks the Court to reconsider allowing him to 

amend and increase his claim of punitive damages to $90,000. (ECF No. 118.) 

As noted above, the Court has previously ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for deposition 

transcripts. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting the Court to reconsider its decision, 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. No such transcripts exist, and Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated otherwise. 

The Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s request for amendment of the amount 

of damages because his reasons for amendment did not relate to his Eighth Amendment 

claim. (ECF Nos. 67 & 111.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial,

indicating he also sought increased damages because of the severe trauma he suffered 

in being confined to his cell for a 45-day period. 

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to increase his Eighth Amendment claim for punitive 

damages, he may do so at appropriate times during the trial without amending his 

pleadings. If the jury finds in favor of Plaintiff it will be charged with determining whether 

punitive damages should be awarded to him and, if so, the amount of said damages. In 

that circumstance, Plaintiff can ask the jury to award whatever amount he deems 

appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(c) provides that final judgments should grant the relief 

to which each party is entitled, even if they did not demand such relief in their pleadings

VII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 147 Filed 10/21/15 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

1. Defendants’ motion to substitute expert witness is GRANTED (ECF No. 

145.);

2. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants from discussing the case is 

DENIED (ECF No. 115.);

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED (ECF No. 129.); and 

4. Plaintiff’s requests for a subpoena for Officer Gaulden, for deposition 

transcripts, and for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to 

amend are DENIED (ECF No. 118.).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 147 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 5