Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01486-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-1486 LKK JFM P

vs.

ROBERT PRESLEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2007, this court issued an initial pretrial order and allowed the

parties fifteen days in which to file objections. On March 14, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to

the pretrial order. Defendants have not filed objections. The court hereby rules on the

objections and will incorporate those sustained in a final pretrial order issued herewith.

Plaintiff objects that Sergeant Johnson’s correct name is Sergeant Johnston. This

name will be corrected.

Plaintiff objects to the order’s use of the phrase “holding cell,” and requests the

order be revised to state “holding cage.” Good cause appearing, these references will be

changed.

/////

Case 2:00-cv-01486-LKK -JFM Document 143 Filed 04/19/07 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

2

Plaintiff objects to the inclusion of a hearsay statement by Lt. Akin in the

statement of undisputed facts. Good cause appearing, that reference will be removed.

Plaintiff objects that another disputed factual issue is how long plaintiff was held

in the holding cage – plaintiff maintains he was held in the cage for 11 hours, defendant Grannis

claims plaintiff was held in the cage for six hours. Good cause appearing, this disputed fact will

be added.

In the disputed evidentiary issues section, plaintiff objects to each of the

defendants’ objections to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence. However, the order reflects

that defendants will dispute the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence. It is assumed that plaintiff

will seek admission of his own evidence, and admissibility will be an issue for the trial judge. 

Accordingly, no reference to his objections to defendants’ objections is required at this time. 

Plaintiff’s objection to this section is overruled.

Plaintiff objects to the removal of his request for expungement of the false rule

violation report as well as the inclusion of footnote 6 referencing the fact that the dismissal of

plaintiff’s false disciplinary claim was affirmed on appeal. Plaintiff argues that the order

dismissing the claim was unclear. Plaintiff contends he has a right to have the false rule

violation report log number SAC-B-00-08-020 removed from his prison file. Defendants

included plaintiff’s request for expungement in their pretrial statement. Good cause appearing,

plaintiff’s objection is partially granted. The expungement has been added, but footnote six has

been revised to include plaintiff’s position.

Plaintiff objects to the denial of witness fees and asks the court to advance the

witness fees and allow plaintiff to pay for the witness fees on a monthly basis out of his prison

trust account. Plaintiff has cited no authority for this procedure and the court is aware of none. 

Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

Plaintiff objects that the court is required to produce inmate S. Stewart and filed a

declaration stating Mr. Stewart will testify as a percipient witness herein. (Docket No. 142 at 8.) 

Case 2:00-cv-01486-LKK -JFM Document 143 Filed 04/19/07 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

3

Plaintiff’s objection is sustained; the court will issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for

Mr. Stewart’s attendance at trial.

Finally, plaintiff objects to the calling of defendants’ witnesses Lt. A. Acierto,

Sgt. Darby, J. Flint, M. Micheels and Officer Sharp because “they are defendants who [have]

been dismissed from this civil action and the other defendants’ witnesses were not present during

the incidents of plaintiff’s claims.” (Objections at 5.) Plaintiff’s objections are noted and these

objections will be reserved to trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objections to the March 6,

2007 pretrial order are sustained in part and overruled in part, as noted above; by separate order

the court will issue a Final Pretrial Order.

DATED: April 19, 2007.

/001; buck1486.objs

Case 2:00-cv-01486-LKK -JFM Document 143 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 3