Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01259-28/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. SANDERS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER OVERRULING IN PART AND 

SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRETRIAL ORDER

(Docs. 95 and 100)

I. Plaintiff’s Objections to Pretrial Order

Plaintiff Melvin Joseph Simmons, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 14, 2010. This case is set for 

jury trial on January 22, 2014, on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant T. Sanders used excessive 

physical force against him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. 

On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Pretrial Order filed on November 

14, 2013.

A. Denial of Counsel

Plaintiff objects to the denial of his multiple motions for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s contention that the Court applied the incorrect legal standard lacks merit and Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO Document 105 Filed 01/06/14 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

2

objection is overruled. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

B. Further Discovery and Amendment to Add Parties

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s denial of his requests for further discovery and to the denial 

of his motion to amend to add Deral G. Adams and Sergeant J. Medina as defendants. This 

objection also lacks merit given Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate good cause for modification of 

the scheduling order, under which the deadline to amend the pleadings was May 23, 2012, and the 

deadline to complete all discovery was July 23, 2012. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. 

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

C. Witness L. Vasquez

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s notation that he failed to comply with the requirements to 

obtain a subpoena ad testificandum requiring L. Vasquez, a prison employee, to appear at trial. 

This objection lacks merit. Plaintiff is not entitled to compel a witness to testify involuntarily in 

the absence of a subpoena ad testificandum, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements 

for the United States Marshal to serve L. Vasquez with a subpoena; namely, the timely submission 

of the witness fees and travel expenses. (Doc. 74, 2nd Sched. Order, p. 4 lns. 8-28.)

D. Undisputed Facts 2, 3, and 5

Finally, Plaintiff objects to undisputed facts 2, 3, and 5 set forth in the Pretrial Order.

Undisputed Fact 2: Plaintiff has been incarcerated in state prison since January 14, 1999, in 

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).

Plaintiff argues that he has been incarcerated since September 22, 1987. Plaintiff 

submitted an exhibit in support of his argument, and the CDCR inmate locator website lists 

September 22, 1987, as his admission date. This fact will be amended.

Undisputed Fact 3: On November 18, 2009, Plaintiff arrived at the Security Housing Unit 

(“SHU”) at CSP-Corcoran on a bus from California State Prison-Sacramento to serve a two-year 

SHU term for battery on an inmate with a weapon capable of mortal injury. 

Plaintiff argues that he was convicted of battery on an inmate with a weapon and he has 

supported his argument with an exhibit. This fact will be amended.

Case 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO Document 105 Filed 01/06/14 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

3

Undisputed Fact 5: It is the duty of correctional officers, not sergeants, to escort inmates 

and to apply or remove restraints.

Plaintiff disputes this fact and it will be removed from the undisputed fact section and 

added to the disputed fact section.

II. Order

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections to the Pretrial Order are 

overruled in part and sustained in part, and an Amended Pretrial Order will be issued to reflect the 

Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s objections to undisputed facts 2, 3, and 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO Document 105 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 3