Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03870/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03870-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO G. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SERGEANT CLOUS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-3870 CRB

ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AD

TESTIFICANDUM

Plaintiff Fernando G. Lopez brings claims for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. section

1983. He alleges that Defendants – Santa Clara police officers – punched, kicked, and

stomped on his face and body during an arrest for no good reason. See Am. Compl. (dkt. 49

¶¶ 11-12). The officers admit they used blows to subdue Mr. Lopez but argue that they had

to. See Opp’n (dkt. 74) at 3. The case is set for trial on November 14, 2016. 

Mr. Lopez, now a prisoner at San Quentin, has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus

ad testificandum, which would allow him to take the stand despite being incarcerated. Pet.

(dkt. 73) at 1. The officers oppose the petition, arguing that Mr. Lopez “is a violent and

dangerous man” who should not be allowed near the courtroom. See Opp’n at 6. A district

court may, in its discretion, allow a prisoner to testify in a civil trial. Wiggins v. Alameda

Cnty., 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). Four factors matter: 

First, the Court must determine whether Mr. Lopez’s in-court testimony would further

the resolution of this case. See id. The answer is emphatically yes. Only Mr. Lopez and the

involved officers witnessed the disputed encounter, and no video footage of it exists. See

Pet. at 5. The case will hinge on who the jury believes. That makes Mr. Lopez’s testimony

crucial. See United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 315-18 (9th Cir. 1995). What is more, any

prisoner faces a built-in credibility deficit against police officers. So showing the jury clips

of Mr. Lopez’s deposition – taken in prison – or having him testify via video feed – from

Case 3:13-cv-03870-CRB Document 98 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

prison – would just pile on. 

Second, the Court must determine whether Mr. Lopez poses a security risk. See

Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 n.1. Mr. Lopez has, by all indications, been a model prisoner at

San Quentin. See Dawson Decl. (dkt. 73-1) Exs. 7-8. And though he is serving time for

assault with a deadly weapon, he committed that crime moments after finding a man in bed

with his ex-girlfriend. See id. Ex. 1 at 85:12-86:20. That is enough under California law to

reduce murder to manslaughter. See Cal. Penal Code § 192(a). It is also enough to convince

the Court that Mr. Lopez poses no special threat, regardless of who attends trial and whatever

tattoos he may have.

Third, the Court must consider the cost of transporting and supervising Mr. Lopez. 

See Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 n.1. An official at San Quentin has already said that doing so

would be “no problem” because it is something they do on “a regular basis.” See Dawson

Decl. Ex. 10. And in any event, costs matter but they do not control. 

Fourth, the Court must consider whether to stay the case until Mr. Lopez is released

over a year from now. See Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 n.1. The parties have prepared for trial

and agree that the case should move forward. See Pet. at 7; Opp’n at 8.

The Court GRANTS the writ. Mr. Lopez will take the stand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-03870-CRB Document 98 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 2