Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05390/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05390-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES HOPKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

MOHAMMAD ALI, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-5390 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO MODIFY SCHEDULING

ORDER AND MOTION FOR

ATTENDANCE OF

INCARCERATED WITNESS 

(Documents #83 & 84)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Charles Hopkins (“Plaintiff”)’s amended complaint filed

May 2, 2002. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections,

brings this civil rights action against Defendants Ali, Martinez, and Loaiza (“Defendants”) for

violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights. The amended complaint alleges that Defendants failed to

provide medical treatment for Plaintiff’s hand from April to November 2001. Plaintiff has filed

a motion to modify the court’s scheduling order and a motion for the attendance of an

incarcerated witness at trial.

The court’s January 5, 2005 Second Scheduling order stated that any motion for the

attendance of an incarcerated witness must be filed by April 4, 2005. Plaintiff did not file a

timely motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness. Plaintiff’s motion for the

attendance of an incarcerated witness was not filed until May 13, 2005. As such, the court can

only consider Plaintiff’s motion if the court modifies the Second Scheduling Order. A

Case 1:02-cv-05390-AWI -SMS Document 106 Filed 06/22/05 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

1

 In this letter, Plaintiff also poses three questions to the court. Plaintiff asks when he

will be transferred to the court. The CDC has been ordered to have Plaintiff appear in court on

June 28, 2005. Exactly when Plaintiff will leave his current institution and where Plaintiff will

be housed during trial is a decision that will be made by CDC.

Plaintiff also asks what he will be allowed to bring with him. Again, the CDC will

decide what materials Plaintiff may bring with him to court. Because the transportation officers

are aware that trial cannot proceed without legal materials, in this court’s experience litigants are

allowed to bring relevant legal materials. 

Finally, Plaintiff inquires whether he can ask leading questions in his direct examination. 

2

scheduling order controls the subsequent course of an action unless it is modified by the court.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A scheduling order cannot be modified "except upon a showing of good cause." Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(b); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). In this

case, even if the court grants Plaintiff’s request to modify the Second Scheduling Order, the court

would deny Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness. 

Plaintiff requests that the court bring Inmate Brad Williams to trial. Plaintiff states that

Brad Williams witnessed the medical care received by Plaintiff and his interactions with certain

medical personnel at CSATF. Plaintiff provides evidence that this incarcerated witness

indicated in May 2001 that he is willing to testify on behalf of Plaintiff. It does not appear

Plaintiff has been in contact with this witness for some time.

It is not this court’s policy to transport an incarcerated witness unless the witness is

currently willing to come to court to testify. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide any

information indicating whether Brad Williams is willing to testify on behalf of Plaintiff at a trial

beginning on June 28, 2005, the court must deny Plaintiff’s motion. In addition, Plaintiff does

not know Brad Williams’ prison identification number. Without this number, the court has no

ability to find Brad Williams and order prison officials to transport him to trial. The court’s

contact with CDC reveals that there are several inmate with the name Brad Williams incarcerated

within CDC. Without either Brad Williams’s prison identification number or his birthday, the

court cannot compel the CDC to bring Brad Williams to court. On June 20, 2005, the court

received a letter from Plaintiff.1 In this letter Plaintiff states that he cannot find any additional

Case 1:02-cv-05390-AWI -SMS Document 106 Filed 06/22/05 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

Generally, leading questions are not allowed when conducting a direct examination. However,

there are exceptions to this rule. Therefore, the morning of trial Plaintiff should raise the issue of

leading questions with the court and disclose which witnesses he would like to ask leading

questions. 

3

information about the Brad Williams he would like the court to transport. Thus, the court finds

that it cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of an incarcerated witness.

Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Second Scheduling Order is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05390-AWI -SMS Document 106 Filed 06/22/05 Page 3 of 3