Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00524/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00524-23/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY C. THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MARK KUO,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00524-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF 

WITNESSES

(ECF No. 93)

Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for 

the Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses, seeking the attendance of incarcerated witness 

Hiram Summers, CDCR #K610052. (ECF No. 93.) Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion, 

arguing that the proposed testimony from this incarcerated witness is inadmissible hearsay. 

(ECF No. 95.) 

At the time Plaintiff filed the motion, he was proceeding in this action pro se. Since 

then, in October 2019, the Court appointed pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for trial, 

currently set for May 5, 2020. (ECF Nos. 146, 147.) In light of the appointment of counsel to 

represent Plaintiff, the Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the 

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 154 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 4
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

motion. (ECF No. 150.) The parties have now filed their supplemental briefing. (ECF Nos. 152, 

153.)

For the reasons described below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. DISCUSSION

The court has discretion on whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. 

See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Cummings v. Adams, 2006 WL 

449095, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006) (“The determination whether to issue a writ of habeas 

corpus ad testificandum rests within the sound discretion of the district court.”). 

In determining whether to issue a writ to bring a state prisoner to federal court, a Court 

should conduct a cost-benefit analysis, considering the following factors: (1) whether the 

inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case; (2) the security risks 

presented by the inmate’s presence; (3) the expense of the prisoner’s transportation and 

safekeeping; and (4) whether the suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released without 

prejudice to the cause asserted. See Cummings, 2006 WL 449095, at *3; Wiggins v. County of 

Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks the attendance of incarcerated witness Hiram Summers. Plaintiff 

represents that Mr. Summers is willing to voluntarily testify and sets forth the proposed 

testimony of Mr. Summers as follows: 

Inmate Hiram Summers has actual knowledge of relevant facts, in 

that he has actual first-hand as an ear-witness to the relevant facts. 

Inmate Summers did on May 17, 2018 hear dental assistant 

Cynthia Nolan inform Plaintiff that the Dental Department of 

CDCR does not allow the use of silver nitrate stick on the inmates 

when they perform any kind of dental procedures. Which is a 

relevant matter of fact, because [Plaintiff] was inquiring from 

prison dental medical staff the use of silver nitrate stick during oral 

surgeries on inmates.

(ECF No. 93.)

In supplemental briefing, Plaintiff confirms that he still requests the attendance of this 

witness, and Defendant confirms that he still objects to the attendance of this witness.

The Court has considered the parties’ positions regarding this witness and has 

conducted a cost-benefit analysis regarding this witness. The Court finds the testimony of 

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 154 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Mr. Summers to be relevant as it relates specifically to the key issue in this case—the 

availability and use of silver nitrate during oral surgeries—and corroborates Plaintiff’s position 

regarding the use of silver nitrate during his oral surgery. 

Defendant argues that the proposed testimony is hearsay, does not fall within any 

exception to the hearsay rule, and is therefore inadmissible. (ECF Nos. 95, 152.) In 

supplemental briefing, Plaintiff argues that the testimony is not excluded as hearsay because it 

is not offered for the truth of what the statement contains but is instead offered to show that the 

statement by dental assistant Cynthia Nolan was made while she was acting in the scope of her 

employment, during the course of rendering dental care to Plaintiff, and to demonstrate 

Plaintiff’s state of mind and his conduct after he heard the statement. (ECF No. 153.) 

The Court is not ruling on the admissibility of Ms. Nolan’s testimony. That is a matter 

that will be determined by the trial judge. Nonetheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff appears to 

be seeking to admit the testimony regarding Ms. Nolan’s statement for the truth of the matter 

asserted in that statement, and that the statement is therefore hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801. 

Based on the limited information available to the Court, it also appears that Ms. Nolan’s 

statement may, however, be admissible as a statement that “is made for—and is reasonably 

pertinent to—medical diagnosis or treatment” or as a statement that “describes medical history; 

past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.” Fed. R. Evid. 

803(4). The Court has insufficient facts regarding the context of this statement to make a 

determination on its admissibility under this exception to the hearsay rule, and notes that such a 

determination will ultimately be made by the trial judge and not the undersigned.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Summers’ presence 

at trial will substantially further resolution of the case. While his testimony may be excluded 

by the trial court, Plaintiff has made a colorable argument why it would be admitted. 

After conducting a cost-benefit analysis, the Court finds that Mr. Summers should come 

to Court. Again, the Court is only determining that Mr. Summers should be brought to Court to 

testify because his testimony is sufficiently relevant to warrant the cost. The Court is not 

precluding objections to his testimony, which will be addressed either through motions in 

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 154 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 4
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

limine or at trial.

II. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

attendance of witnesses (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED. 

Approximately one month before the trial the Court will issue writs of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum to have Mr. Hiram Summers brought to the court to testify at the trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 154 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 4