Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00948-8/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

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. ZAMORA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-00948 DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF 

INCARCERATED WITNESSES

[ECF No. 48]

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 12, 2012. This action for 

damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Zamora, 

Rodriguez, and Acevedo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution, and against Defendants Gutierrez and Six Doe Defendants for failing to 

intervene to protect Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. The events at issue occurred on January 10, 2012, while Plaintiff was housed at 

Corcoran State Prison. 

The matter is set for jury trial on June 23, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., before the undersigned.

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the attendance of five incarcerated 

witnesses. Defendants did not oppose the motion.

///

Case 1:12-cv-00948-JLT Document 58 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motions 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, (3) the expense of 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, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995).

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of five incarcerated witnesses: LaMont Shepard (“K29682), Kevin E. Fields (#P-83425), LaMonte Bencher (#D-97733), Curley John Broussard (#C78707), and Darnell Lemons (#E-49397). 

Inmates Shepard and Fields were not eye or ear-witnesses to any of the events at issue. 

For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for their attendance is denied.

Plaintiff avers that Inmates Bencher and Broussard were eye and ear-witnesses to the 

incident. Plaintiff has submitted Inmate Bencher’s declaration as an exhibit to his motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 32.) According to the declaration, Inmate Bencher states he 

witnessed officers slam Plaintiff on the ground in front of the building entrance and begin 

punching him in the stomach. Plaintiff states that Inmate Broussard observed the incident and 

heard Defendant Zamora’s statements during the incident. Plaintiff states that Inmates Bencher 

and Broussard have informed him that they will testify if called. Because Inmates Bencher and 

Broussard have personal knowledge of the incident, the Court will allow their testimonies.

Case 1:12-cv-00948-JLT Document 58 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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 declares that Inmate Lemons observed Defendants Rodriguez and Zamora “for 

days admitting to assaulting me, and observed them harassing and threatening me for filing a 

complaint.” (ECF No. 48 at p. 2.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied. First, Inmate Lemons’ 

observation of Defendants harassing and threatening Plaintiff for filing a complaint is not 

relevant to any of the claims in this matter. Second, Inmate Lemons was not an eyewitness or 

ear-witness to the incident. His knowledge stems from statements made apart from the incident 

itself. Plaintiff’s declaration concerning Inmate Lemons witnessing of Defendants Rodriguez’s

and Zamora’s admitting to assaulting Plaintiff is too vague and insufficient to show that the 

witness has actual firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts of the incident. Plaintiff does not 

specify what was said, when and where it occurred, who was present, and how the witness 

happened to be in a position to see or hear what occurred. Therefore, the Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s request for Inmate Lemons’ attendance. 

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses is GRANTED as to 

Inmates LaMonte Bencher (#D-97733), and Curley John Broussard (#C-78707). Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED as to Inmates LaMont Shepard (“K-29682), Kevin E. Fields (#P-83425), and 

Darnell Lemons (#E-49397). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00948-JLT Document 58 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3