Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR WITNESSES TO TESTIFY

(Doc. No. 198)

On August 26, 2024, the Court set a bench trial for February 3, 2025 on Plaintiff’s battery

claim under the FTCA based on a use of force incident that occurred on October 13, 2014. (Doc. 

No. 179 (“Order”)). The Order advised Plaintiff that he “must make a particularized showing to 

obtain the attendance of inmate-witnesses” at trial. (Id. at 3). Of relevance, for “[a]n incarcerated 

witness who agrees voluntarily to attend trial to give testimony,” the Court required Plaintiff to 

file a motion “accompanied by declarations showing that each witness is willing to testify and 

that each witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts.” (Id.). The Order provided:

4. The willingness of the prospective witness can be shown in one 

of two ways: (1) can swear personally by declaration under penalty 

of perjury that the prospective witness has information that the 

witness is willing to testify voluntarily without being subpoenaed. 

In the declaration, the party must state when and where the 

prospective witness informed him of this willingness; or (2) the 

prospective witness can sign a declaration under penalty of perjury 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 210 Filed 01/02/25 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

in which the witness states that he or she is willing to testify 

without being subpoenaed.

5. The prospective incarcerated witnesses’ actual knowledge of 

relevant facts can be shown in one of two ways: (1) if the party has 

actual firsthand knowledge that the prospective witness was an 

eyewitness or an ear-witness to the relevant facts, the party can 

swear by declaration under penalty of perjury that the prospective 

witness has actual knowledge (e.g., if an incident occurred in 

Plaintiff’s cell and, at the time, the party saw that a cellmate was 

present and observed the incident, the party may swear to the 

cellmate’s ability to testify); or (2) the inmate witness can sign a 

declaration under penalty of perjury in which the inmate-witness 

describes the relevant facts to which the prospective 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 able to see or to hear what

occurred at the time it occurred. The party must serve and file the 

declaration made the inmate-witness or by himself.

(Id. at 3-4). 

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff moved the Court “for an order for incarcerated witnesses 

Majuan Fleming and Stephen Hunt to testify about the events at issue for the trial.” (Doc. No. 

198). Plaintiff represents Fleming (1) “was an ear-witness and heard the Plaintiff state ‘your [sic] 

hurting me’ after he was assaulted by Baker” and (2) “seen exactly were [sic] the cameras were 

positioned in October 2014 and was present at U.S.P. Atwater when the cameras were removed, 

after the filing of this lawsuit.” (Id. at 1). As to Hunt, Plaintiff indicates he “was an ear witness 

and heard Baker state to the Plaintiff in September of 2014 that the Affiant should be careful 

about who he wrote grievances” and “can also testify ... that there were 360o bubble cameras 

throughout Unit 6B.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff represents “both of these witnesses have indicated there 

[sic] willingness to testify.” (Id.). 

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 

Order. (Doc. No. 207). Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to show the prospective witnesses’ 

willingness to testify because he failed to “state when and where the prospective witness 

informed him of this willingness.” (Id. at 2). Further, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to 

provide sufficient details about how the witnesses obtained knowledge of the events surrounding 

the alleged battery, which is the only claim proceeding to trial. (Id.). Finally, Defendant argues 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 210 Filed 01/02/25 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

any knowledge about the prison cameras is not a reason to transport the prospective witnesses to 

court for trial on the battery claim. (Id. at 3). 

The Court agrees with the Defendant that Plaintiff failed to make the necessary showing 

required by the Order. While Plaintiff states both Fleming and Hunt indicated their willingness to 

testify, he wholly fails to indicate “when and where the prospective witness informed him of this 

willingness” as required. (Doc. No. 179 at 3). Further, Plaintiff’s declaration does not provide 

the level of detail regarding the prospective witnesses’ knowledge because it is not “specific 

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

witness happened to be able to see or to hear what occurred at the time it occurred.” (Id. at 4). 

Plaintiff simply has not satisfied the requirements of the Order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No.198) is DENIED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 210 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3