Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00042-17/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. CHERNISS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-0042-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is currently set for trial before the district judge on March 23, 2015. 

Plaintiff has submitted a flurry of motions requesting that the court issue orders pertaining to 

many diverse issues. ECF Nos. 115, 116, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, & 128. Plaintiff’s motions 

will be denied for the reasons provided below. Additionally, defense counsel has submitted a 

declaration regarding plaintiff’s proposed incarcerated trial witnesses, requesting that the court 

quash the writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum that have issued for these individuals. ECF No. 

136. The court will direct plaintiff to file a response to the allegations contained in the 

declaration, as provided below. 

I. Motions Regarding Service of Trial Subpoena on L. Lesane 

Plaintiff has filed a number of motions asking for the court’s assistance in obtaining the 

information and documents so that he could comply with the court’s requirements for effecting 

Case 2:11-cv-00042-JAM-EFB Document 138 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

service by the U.S. Marshal on trial witness L. Lesane. ECF Nos. 115, 116, 117, 122, & 124. 

These motions are moot in light of plaintiff’s submission of the necessary items to the Marshal 

and this court’s order directing the Marshal to serve L. Lesane. ECF No. 137. The motions will 

accordingly be denied. 

II. Motions Regarding Accommodations During Trial 

Plaintiff seeks a court order directing various individuals to provide him with certain items 

or accommodations for trial. ECF Nos. 125, 126, 127, & 128. Specifically, plaintiff would like 

the court to order: 

1. the U.S. Marshal (instead of CDCR) to transport plaintiff to Sacramento (ECF No. 

125); 

2. to be transported to Sacramento no more than two days prior to trial and transported 

back to his institution no more than two days after trial concludes (id.); 

3. CDCR to allow plaintiff to bring to trial soap, toothbrush and paste, underclothes, 

socks, a bowl, a cup, a spoon, a jar of coffee, 10 instant soups, 10 peanut butter 

packets, one bag of cereal, 10 meat packs, 10 candy bars, 8-10 manila folders, paper, 

two ink pens, and two legal books (ECF No. 128); 

4. the Federal Defender’s Office to provide plaintiff with street clothes to wear at trial 

and that the jury not be permitted to view plaintiff in his prison clothes (ECF No. 127); 

5. CDCR be required to house plaintiff during trial at the “federal facility” in 

Sacramento, not in any administrative segregation, and with access to a phone, daily 

showers, his legal materials, and a law library (ECF No. 126). 

Plaintiff’s requests for court intervention against persons who are not parties to this case 

are governed by The All Writs Act. That Act gives federal courts the authority to issue “all writs 

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 

principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). It is meant to aid the court in the exercise and 

preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 

(9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in 

appropriate circumstances against persons who, “though not parties to the original action or 

Case 2:11-cv-00042-JAM-EFB Document 138 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the 

proper administration of justice.” United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). 

To obtain an order under the All Writs Act, the requested order must be “necessary.” This 

language requires that the relief requested is not available through some alternative means. 

Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999). Plaintiff has not shown that the items and 

accommodations he requests are necessary. Plaintiff speculates that the transport and 

accommodations that CDCR will provide will be inadequate, but provides no reason why the 

court should accept that speculation as fact. The Federal Defender’s Office has no involvement 

in this case, and the court lacks authority to order that entity to provide plaintiff with clothing. If 

plaintiff lacks sufficient access to hygiene items or legal materials when he has been brought to 

Sacramento for trial, plaintiff may inform the trial judge and seek relief at that time. The court 

otherwise declines to micromanage the transport, housing, and accommodations CDCR will 

provide to plaintiff, and plaintiff’s motions requesting court intervention will therefore be denied. 

III. Motions Regarding Incarcerated Witnesses 

Plaintiff once again asks for the court’s assistance in obtaining the attendance at trial of 

his incarcerated and formerly-incarcerated witnesses. ECF No. 123. First, plaintiff asks for the 

court to compel CDCR to produce inmates Oliver Overton and Steven Bradley at trial. The court 

has issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Mr. Overton. ECF No. 132. However, 

defense counsel has filed a declaration from Mr. Overton in which Mr. Overton states that he did 

not author and sign the declaration plaintiff has submitted purporting to be from him and that he 

does not know plaintiff or have any relevant facts pertaining to this case. ECF No. 136. 

Defendants ask the court to quash the writ for Mr. Overton. The court will order plaintiff to 

respond to this request. As to Mr. Bradley, the CDCR inmate locator website indicates that he is 

not incarcerated. CDCR Inmate Locator, http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (searched February 25, 

2015). Accordingly, the court cannot order CDCR to produce Mr. Bradley. 

Second, plaintiff seeks some unspecified help in getting former inmates Rocky L. 

Bundeson, Victor Cordero, and Daniel Patillo to trial. Mr. Patillo has been reincarcerated, and 

the court has issued a writ for his appearance at trial. ECF No. 131. Defense counsel asks that 

Case 2:11-cv-00042-JAM-EFB Document 138 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 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 

4

the writ be quashed, because Mr. Patillo is undergoing treatment for Hepatitis C and does not 

wish to be transported to Sacramento for trial. Absent any evidence that appearing at trial would 

compromise his medical treatment, the court is not inclined to grant defendants’ request, but will 

nevertheless order plaintiff to respond. Mssrs. Bundeson and Cordero are not currently in the 

custody of CDCR, and plaintiff does not know where they are. As the court has informed 

plaintiff already, it was his responsibility to maintain contact with and/or locate his trial witnesses 

prior to the close of discovery. ECF No. 106 at 8-9 (noting that plaintiff should have pursued the 

location of his trial witnesses during discovery). The court will not locate plaintiff’s witnesses for 

him. 

IV. Order 

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions denoted ECF Nos. 115, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 

128 are denied. 

2. Within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a response to defense 

counsel’s declaration (ECF No. 136) and the accompanying request that the writs of 

habeas corpus ad testificandum for trial witnesses Overton and Patillo be quashed. 

DATED: February 26, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-00042-JAM-EFB Document 138 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 4