Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898-24/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He objects to the magistrate judge’s May 23, 2014 Pretrial Order, arguing that it 

denies him the right to call material witnesses for trial to and to fairly present his case to a jury. 

ECF No. 130. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 

BACKGROUND 

The magistrate judge issued an order on October 24, 2013 directing the filing of pretrial 

statements. ECF No. 108. That order outlined the procedures for obtaining witnesses for trial 

and required that plaintiff file any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of such witnesses 

within 30 days. Id. 

On December 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Issuance of the Subpoena Duces 

Tecum Upon Hostile Witnesses & Request to Assign Marshal Fees to the Defendants for Service 

of the Processes & Costs.” ECF No. 117. Plaintiff claimed that because his requested witnesses 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 137 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

were “material,” the court should “assign witness & travel expenses to the defendants.” Id. at 4. 

The motion included a proposed list of witnesses. Id. at 6-19. 

On May 22, 2014, the magistrate judge issued the Pretrial Order, which included 

plaintiff’s proposed list of witnesses. ECF No. 127 at 5. The order informed plaintiff that he was 

mistaken in his belief that his witness fees and travel expenses should be paid for by the 

defendants. Id. at 4. The order reminded plaintiff that it was his responsibility to obtain his 

witnesses’ presence at trial, and that despite plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, plaintiff was 

required to pay any witness fees and travel expenses. Id. at 4-5. The order did not exclude any of 

plaintiff’s proposed witnesses from testifying at trial. 

The Pretrial Order required that any objections thereto be filed within 30 days. Id. at 10. 

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 

Plaintiff filed his objections on June 13, 2014. ECF No. 130. As noted, he claims that the 

Pretrial Order denies him the right to call witnesses and fairly present his case. Id. 

Local Rule 303(f) provides that magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that the witness 

requirements set forth in the magistrate judge’s Pretrial Order were not clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law. 

Plaintiff’s assertion that the Pretrial Order denies him the right to call witnesses is 

predicated on his mistaken contention that defendants are responsible for securing the attendance 

of his witnesses at trial. It is well-settled that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, as permitted by 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize or require federal courts to finance or subsidize a civil 

action or appeal by paying witness fees or other expenses. Hadsell v. Internal Revenue Service, 

107 F.3d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Neither 

does that statute authorize an order requiring defendants to pay for the attendance of plaintiff’s 

witnesses. The simple requirement that plaintiff secure the attendance of his own witnesses at 

trial does not impede his right of access to the courts or otherwise deprive him of a fair trial. See 

Hadsell, 107 F.3d at 753 (a plaintiff’s inability to subpoena witnesses does not deny him access to 

the courts where he had alternatives to the subpoenaed witnesses that could have been used to 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 137 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

support his claims). 

ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate 

judge’s May 23, 2014 Pretrial Order (ECF No. 130) are overruled. 

DATED: August 11, 2014 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 137 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 3