Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-17/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06636-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE SET

FORTH IN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 92)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS’

COUNSEL TO FILE A STATUS REPORT ON

THE OUTSTANDING WITNESS ISSUE

WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO LIFT STAY AND SET PRETRIAL

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

(Doc. 90)

Pretrial Dispositive Motion

Deadline: December 4, 2007

Opposition Deadline: February 4, 2008

I. Order

A. Relevant Procedural History

Plaintiff Charles Chatman (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed September 1, 2004, against defendants Winett, Vazquez,

Fortson, Lundy, and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and defendants

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 93 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Winett, Vazquez, Lundy, Traynham, Mack, Wells, Jimenez, Duran, Bowman, and Johnson for

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

On January 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the Court’s assistance in locating twentyseven witnesses. (Doc. 82.) The Court vacated the pretrial dispositive motion deadline, set the

matter for a telephonic hearing, and following the hearing, issued the following order:

1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will locate the

following nine inmate witnesses and will request that the wardens at the

institutions allow the inmates to correspond in writing for the limited purpose

of allowing plaintiff to (1) ascertain whether the inmates are eye or ear

witnesses to events relevant to plaintiff’s claims in this action, (2) ascertain

whether the inmates are willing to cooperate and provide statements to

plaintiff, and (3) obtain declarations from each witnesses, signed under

penalty of perjury, attesting to what they saw or heard:

Koch, Rodney T-35419

Matthews, Lester J-93234

Allen K-68578

Williams, Darryle C-68242

Dedmon, Andre P-60122

Green, Kenneth E-00453

Hasan, Jawwaaz H-84717

McCray, Malcolm J-07628

Kline, Stacy J-99283;

2. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline will be re-set once sufficient

progress has been made regarding facilitation of plaintiff’s communication

with his inmate witnesses; and

3. The Court’s attempt to facilitate plaintiff’s contact with the twenty-six

inmates set forth in the memorandum dated December 31, 2002, plus Rodney

Koch, is limited to the nine inmates listed above.

(Doc. 86.) On March 6, 2007, the Court sent a letter to the wardens at the prisons at which plaintiff

and his inmate witnesses were housed, requesting that plaintiff be granted permission to

communicate with his witnesses. (Doc. 88.)

On April 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court lift the stay and set a

pretrial dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 90.) Plaintiff stated that prison officials were not

cooperating and he was willing to proceed with his case without further delay, and that he already

had enough information to defeat a motion for summary judgment. On May 29, 2007, plaintiff filed

an objection to defendants’ dictation of his witness correspondence and requested an order

mandating that defendants and their counsel cease dictating the terms of his correspondence. (Doc.

92.) Defendants did not file a response to either filing.

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 93 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Objection

Plaintiff objects to the procedure proposed by defense counsel in her letter dated April 20,

2007, and takes issue with counsel’s involvement in formulating a procedure. Plaintiff contends that

under the procedure, his correspondence would be viewed by many different prison officials and by

defense counsel. Plaintiff also contends that counsel’s second letter, dated May 21, 2007, falsely

asserts that all the wardens have agreed to the same procedure and points out that Warden Evans at

Salinas Valley State Prison sent a letter setting forth a different procedure. Plaintiff also contends

that counsel falsely accused him of trying to communicate with his witnesses by using the Court’s

order as a representation that he is entitled to mail correspondence to his witnesses. Plaintiff asserts

that he is in compliance with Title 15 regulations and the wardens have no authority to act in

contravention of the regulations.

The issuance of the letter by Warden Evans does not necessarily compel the conclusion that

defense counsel misrepresented that all wardens were in agreement with the procedure. Further, the

Court can resolve this issue without delving into what plaintiff may or may not have done, and will

now do so.

Under no circumstance should plaintiff expect to be allowed to correspond with his inmate

witnesses in complete confidentiality. As set forth in the Court’s letter, communication is subject

to whatever restrictions and procedures prison officials’ deemed appropriate. The Court has

requested that plaintiff be granted permission to communicate with his witnesses. How prison

officials choose to accommodate this request rests soundly in their discretion. The Court suggests

to plaintiff that insistence with rigid compliance with the regulation governing inmate

communication may in the end serve plaintiff’s needs less well than allowing prison officials to work

out a procedure that is less burdensome and complicated for all. 

The Court has reviewed the procedure proposed by defendants’ counsel in her letter dated

April 20, 2007, and finds it to be reasonable and acceptable. Plaintiff can be assured that his

communication with his witnesses stands a significantly better chance of being accomplished with

counsel’s assistance in facilitating with staff at each of the prisons an agreed upon procedure rather

than by leaving the matter in plaintiff’s hands with only a letter. If plaintiff is interested in

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 93 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

communicating with his nine inmate witnesses, plaintiff shall comply with the procedure chosen by

prison officials to effect communication by drafting and submitting his questions to the High Desert

State Prison Litigation Coordinator within thirty days from the date ofservice of this order. Defense

counsel shall provide the Court with a status report in forty-five days, and shall notify the Litigation

Coordinator at High Desert that he or she may be contacted by plaintiff within the next thirty days

regarding the witness issue, in an effort to minimize any potential problems.

With respect to the letter from Warden Evans at Salinas Valley State Prison, dated April 26,

2007, Warden Evans outlined a procedure that differsfrom that set forth by defense counsel. While

Warden Evans has the discretion to handle this issue as he chooses, including requiring strict

compliance with Title 15 regulations, it does seem to the Court that having one agreed upon

procedure would be simpler, and lead to less confusion and delay. In the status report, defense

counsel shall address this issue and notify the Court whether the agreed upon procedure is acceptable

to prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison or not.

 C. Motion to Lift Stay and Set Deadline

 Plaintiff has requested that the stay be lifted and a pretrial dispositive motion deadline be

set. Plaintiff has represented to the Court that he has sufficient information to oppose a motion for

summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be granted. The deadline for filing pretrial

dispositive motions is December 4, 2007, and the deadline for filing oppositions is February 4, 2008.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall comply

with the procedure set forth in defense counsel’s letter dated April 20, 2007;

2. Defense counsel shall notify the Litigation Coordinator at High Desert State Prison

that he or she may be contacted by plaintiff within the next thirty days to initiate

communication with his witnesses, and within forty-five (45) days from the date of

service of this order, defendants’ counsel shall file a status report on the witness

issue, including addressing the issue of Warden Evan’s letter;

///

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 93 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff’s motion that the stay be lifted and a pretrial dispositive motion deadline be

set, filed April 23, 2007, is GRANTED;

4. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is December 4, 2007; and

5. The deadline for filing oppositions is February 4, 2008.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 93 Filed 08/21/07 Page 5 of 5