Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247-43/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

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

CARLOS HENDON,,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. BAROYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:05-cv-01247-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF 

INCARCERATED WITNESS AND 

FURTHER CLARIFICATOIN

(ECF NO. 150)

At the September 21, 2015, pretrial confirmation hearing, the Court indicated that it 

would consider Plaintiff’s March 9, 2105, motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness. 

Defendant Fam has opposed the motion.

In the February 17, 2015, scheduling order (ECF No. 148), Plaintiff was advised that in 

order to obtain the attendance of an incarcerated witness, he must show, by declaration, that the 

prospective witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts. Plaintiff was advised that the 

prospective witness’s actual knowledge could be shown in one of two ways: (1) if the party has 

actual knowledge that the prospective witness was an eyewitness or an ear witness to the relevant 

facts, the party himself can swear by declaration under penalty of perjury that the prospective 

witness has actual knowledge; or (2) the party can serve and file a declaration signed under 

penalty of perjury by the prospective witness in which the witness was an eye or ear witness. 

Whether the declaration is made by the party or by the prospective witness, it must be specific 

about the incident, when and where it occurred, who was present, and how the prospective 

witness happened to be in a position to see or to hear what occurred at the time it occurred.

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of inmate witness Billy Fells. Plaintiff supports his motion 

with the declaration of inmate Fells. Inmate Fells declares that he was housed at CCI (where the 

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 190 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 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

2

events at issue in this lawsuit occurred) from January 1996 through January 1998. He was on 

suicide precaution at CCI “on several occasions” and was subjected to cold cell temperatures, 

constant lighting, and lack of showers. 

The events at issue in this lawsuit occurred from June 2002 to January 2003. Inmate 

Fells indicates that he only has knowledge of his own experience. Defendant Fam correctly 

argues that because Plaintiff’s remaining claim is against individual defendants rather than 

against a public entity, Fells’ experience is irrelevant to this action and he should not be 

permitted to testify. Because Plaintiff has not shown that Inmate Fells was an eye or ear witness 

to the events at issue in this lawsuit, he is not permitted to testify.

In the Court’s trial scheduling order of April 20, 2015 (ECF No. 169), the Court set a 

deadline of September 15, 2015, to exchange exhibits. In the September 22, 2015, pretrial order 

(ECF No. 175), the date was extended to September 29, 2015. Defendants indicate that the 

parties exchanged exhibits on September 15, 2015. The date for filing and serving a final exhibit 

list and pre-marked exhibits is October 6, 2015.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witness Billy Fells is denied; 

and

2. The deadline for filing and serving a final exhibit list and pre-marked exhibits is 

October 6, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 190 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2