Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689-43/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 Jean-Pierre K. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants’ request for 

reconsideration of the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Inmate Damion Moore. (Doc. 206). 

Defendants report that Inmate Moore “does not have any relevant testimony and is refusing to attend 

the trial.” (Doc. 206). Further, Defense counsel indicates that in her conversation with Inmate Moore, 

he stated that he would “plead the fifth,” “not say anything in Court,” and suggested that it would 

“save a lot of money if he did not have to go [to trial].” Id. at 2. 

According to Plaintiff, Moore was present at the time of the October 5, 2006 altercation and 

was an eye-witness to the event. While Moore has expressed his unwillingness to testify, he has not 

yet declared his position under oath before the Court. Moreover, in his letter to the Court, filed on 

June 27, 2013, Mr. Moore reports that, in his view, the only information he has is “hearsay.” (Doc. 

184) However, exactly what this hearsay evidence is or what Mr. Moore’s understanding is of the 

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-0689 – JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

(Doc. 206)

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 210 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 2
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

hearsay rule, isn’t explained. Clearly, statements made by others may, very well, be inadmissible as 

hearsay unless, for example, they were made by the defendants. On the information provided, the 

Court cannot determine whether Mr. Moore lacks the ability to provide relevant, admissible testimony. 

The interests of justice, therefore, require that Plaintiff be provided an opportunity to examine Moore. 

On the other hand, the Court is aware that the CDCR cannot physically force an inmate to 

appear at court proceedings and if he refuses to appear, despite the Court’s order, the Court will deal 

with that situation at the appropriate time.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for reconsideration of the writ of habeas 

corpus ad testificandum for Inmate Moore. (Doc. 206). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 210 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 2