Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-38/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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF 

INCARCERATED WITNESSES

(ECF NO. 122)

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto M. Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on May 8, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) against defendant Juarez for use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment (ECF No. 19).

This case is scheduled for jury trial before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, which is to 

commence on March 28, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. A pretrial conference is scheduled for January 18,

2017, at 2:00 p.m., before District Judge Ishii. 

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses

(“the motion”). (ECF No. 122). On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplement to the 

motion. (ECF No. 123). On December 30, 2016, defendant Juarez filed an opposition to the 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 131 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 4
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

motion. (ECF No. 126). On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF 

No. 128). The motion is now before the Court. 

II. ATTENDANCE OF INMATE WITNESSES AT TRIAL

On October 20, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order which, among other things, 

advised Plaintiff of the requirements for bringing inmate witnesses to trial who voluntarily 

agree to testify. (ECF No. 116, pgs. 2-3). Plaintiff was informed that the Court must issue an 

order before Plaintiff’s incarcerated witnesses can come to court to testify. (Id. at p. 2). The 

Court also informed Plaintiff that it will not issue such an order unless it is satisfied that: (a) the 

prospective witness is willing to attend, and (b) the prospective witness has actual knowledge 

of relevant facts. (Id.). Plaintiff was advised that he must file a motion for attendance of 

incarcerated witnesses, stating the name, address, and prison identification number of each such 

witness, accompanied by declarations by Plaintiff or the witnesses, showing that each witness 

is willing to testify and has actual knowledge of relevant facts. (Id.). Plaintiff was informed 

that the declaration must show that the prospective witness was an eyewitness or ear-witness to 

relevant facts, and must be specific about the incident at issue in this case, including when and 

where it occurred, who was present, and how the prospective witness happened to be in a 

position to see or hear what occurred at the time it occurred. (Id. at pgs 2-3). 

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff seeks to bring four inmate witnesses to trial: (1) Jorge Salmeron; (2) Juan 

Souza; (3) Michael Vincent Cisneros; and (4) Joseff Lebeau. Plaintiff has provided the names, 

CDCR numbers, and locations of all four of the prospective witnesses. (ECF No. 122, pgs. 5-

7). Plaintiff also submitted declarations from each prospective witness. (ECF Nos. 122-1; 122-

2; 122-3; 122-4; and 123-1). Each declaration states that the declarant was present when the 

excessive force incident allegedly occurred, and explains what the declarant saw.1

Additionally, each witness has filed a declaration stating that he is willing to testify voluntarily. 

 

1 With the exception of the declaration of Michael Vincent Cisneros, which simply states that he 

“witnessed the events underlying Roberto Garcia’s claim of excessive force against Matthew Juarez because [he]

was on the yard at the Kern Valley State Prison.” (ECF No. 122-3, p. 2).

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 131 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 4
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

(Id.).

Defendant seems to only object to the motion as to prospective witness Joseff LeBeau. 

(ECF No. 126, p. 1). Defendant argues that it is unclear whether LeBeau’s declaration “was 

completely filled out by him when he apparently signed it and/or whether it is based on his own 

personal knowledge. There are four lines in his Declaration, one of which has nothing written 

above it.... The fact that the first line is blank indicates that, at some point, the Declaration was 

written with all four lines being left blank. These blanks show that inmate LeBeau did not 

know the name of the inmate who was allegedly kicked or the name of the officer who 

allegedly kicked him. Thereafter, someone filled in the names of Garcia and Juarez.” (Id. at 

pgs. 1-2).

IV. DISCUSSION

The court will grant the motion as to all four defendants. Plaintiff has submitted the 

name, address, and prison identification number of each prospective witness. Additionally, 

Plaintiff has provided declarations from every prospective witness. Each declaration states that 

the declarant was present when the excessive force incident allegedly occurred, and explains

what the declarant saw.

2

 This is enough to show that all four prospective witnesses have actual 

knowledge of relevant facts. Additionally, each witness has filed a declaration stating that he is 

willing to testify voluntarily. Because Plaintiff has met his burden as laid out in the scheduling 

order, the Court will grant the motion. 

While defendant Juarez raises legitimate issues regarding whether Mr. LeBeau’s 

declaration was completed by him, these questions are not sufficient to preclude the witness 

from testifying. Defendant Juarez may question the witness at trial regarding his memory of 

events. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating relevant knowledge 

for all witnesses sufficient for an order for their attendance. 

\\\

 

2 The declaration of Cisneros does not describe what Cisneros saw. However, given that the 

motion does, and given the fact that defendant Jaurez did not object to having Cisneros called as a witness, the 

Court will grant the motion as to Cisneros as well.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 131 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 4
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

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

attendance of incarcerated witnesses, filed on November 30, 2016, is GRANTED. 

Approximately one month before the trial the Court will issue writs of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum, ordering that the witnesses be transported to the court on the date(s) of the trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 131 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 4