Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624-18/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRICK HARRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-00624-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR THE ATTENDANCE

OF TWO INCARCERATED

WITNESSES

(Docs. 65 and 66)

This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeds

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 28, 2006, against

Defendants Hicks, Fuhlrodt, Woods, and Lowden for violation of

the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Yamamoto, Poulos,

and Scribner for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. This matter is set for jury trial on July

28, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. On

May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed motions seeking the attendance of

incarcerated witnesses Andrew Piazza and Blaine Applin. 

Defendants filed an opposition on June 4, 2009.

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of Andrew Piazza, who

witnessed Plaintiff’s slip and fall on May 5, 2004, and Blaine

Applin, who witnessed the fall of inmate Oliver on April 30,

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 71 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 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

 Defendants also argue that the motions are untimely. In light of the 1

prison mailbox rule, the motions appear to be timely, and Defendants’ argument

to the contrary is rejected. Douglas v. Noelle, No. 06-35195, 2009 WL

1564235, *4-6 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2009).

2

2004, and has knowledge of the conditions under which Plaintiff

fell. (Doc. 65, Harrington Dec., ¶3; Doc. 66, Harrington Dec.,

¶¶3-5.) Plaintiff states that neither witness is willing to

voluntarily testify. (Doc. 65, 2:4-5; Doc. 66, 2:2-3.) 

Defendants oppose the motions on the grounds that the

witnesses are not willing to testify voluntarily; Piazza’s

proposed testimony is unnecessary, irrelevant, and cumulative;

and Applin’s proposed testimony is speculative and irrelevant.1

The uncertainty regarding whether or not the proposed

witnesses are willing to testify voluntarily does not preclude

the Court from ordering their transportation. Rather, 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), 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 71 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 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

3

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115

S.Ct. 2293 (1995).

Plaintiff attests that Piazza has firsthand knowledge of the

events on May 5, 2004, when Plaintiff fell. While Plaintiff does

not state where Piazza was located, firsthand knowledge indicates

that Piazza saw the fall happen, making his testimony relevant. 

Plaintiff attests that Applin has firsthand knowledge of the

conditions on April 30, 2004, when inmate Oliver allegedly fell,

and on May 5, 2004, when Plaintiff fell. Given that the

allegedly hazardous condition of the wet floor is at issue and

caused two inmates to fall, Applin’s proposed testimony is

relevant.

The Court has no information before it that either Piazza or

Applin pose any exceptional security risk, or that transport and

security are unduly burdensome. Piazza is located at a prison

several hours away, and Applin is located at a prison

approximately one hour away, so extensive travel is not an issue. 

Finally, Defendants stated in their pretrial statement that

Plaintiff is serving a life sentence, and the Court has no

information before it regarding the sentences of Piazza or

Applin. Therefore, delaying the trial is not an option.

Based on the proposed testimony of the witnesses, both of

whom allegedly witnessed events or conditions relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of

incarcerated witnesses, filed May 11, 2009, are HEREBY GRANTED, 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 71 Filed 06/12/09 Page 3 of 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

4

and orders directing the transportation of Plaintiff and his two

inmate witnesses will be issued closer to the trial date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 71 Filed 06/12/09 Page 4 of 4