Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02266/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02266-20/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALLEN HAMMLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAAS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2266 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 I. Introduction 

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims that defendant 

Correctional Officers P. Haas and B. Louie failed to protect plaintiff from assault by other 

inmates during his prior incarceration at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). ECF No. 12 (First 

Amended Complaint), ECF No. 17 (screening order) at 7-9, ECF No. 54 (order adopting 

screening), ECF No. 66 (order denying summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claim). This 

case is scheduled for trial commencing April 20, 2020, before the Honorable John A. Mendez. 

The Pretrial Order issued on June 4, 2019. ECF No. 85. A writ ad testificandum has issued for 

plaintiff’s trial attendance. ECF No. 91. 

 Presently pending are the following matters: (1) plaintiff’s motion for issuance of writs of 

habeas corpus ad testificandum to obtain the trial attendance of his designated incarcerated 

witnesses, ECF No. 87; and (2) plaintiff’s motion to modify the Pretrial Order to name one 

Case 2:15-cv-02266-DAD-AC Document 96 Filed 03/16/20 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 

additional incarcerated witness, ECF No. 88. Plaintiff has submitted additional briefing, ECF 

Nos. 94-5, as directed by the court, ECF No. 90. Defendants Louie and Haas filed oppositions to 

plaintiff’s motions. ECF Nos. 89, 92-3. Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF No. 95. 

 For the reasons that follow, the undersigned finds that writs are appropriate for witnesses 

Patterson, Santoro, Alford and Adams, but not plaintiff’s other designated witnesses, and the 

court denies plaintiff’s motion to modify the Pretrial Order. 

 II. Percipient Witnesses 

 As set forth in the Pretrial Order, plaintiff identified a total of eleven witnesses. See ECF 

No. 85 at 4. Six of these witnesses are identified as percipient witnesses. Id. The undersigned’s 

review of the Inmate Locator website operated by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR)1 indicates that two of these percipient witnesses are currently unavailable 

to testify. Anthony Mitchell (CDCR #AK7299), plaintiff’s assailant, is no longer listed in the 

Inmate Locator and thus appears no longer to be incarcerated. Donnell Lee Richard (CDCR 

#K00572) is designated as “Out to Hospital.”2 

 The court will issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum for the trial attendance of 

plaintiff’s four remaining percipient witnesses, for the reasons identified by plaintiff,3 which 

satisfy the requirements set forth in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33). 

These four percipient witnesses, for whom writs will be issued contemporaneously with the filing 

of this order, are: Abraham Adams (CDCR #AC9052), Kenneth Patterson (CDCR #AB6602), 

Robert Santoro (CDCR #T40346), and Larry Alford (CDCR #AU8727). 

1

 See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website operated by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that 

are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable 

dispute.”). 

2

 The undersigned will continue to monitor CDCR’s Inmate Locator website to ascertain whether 

inmate Richard becomes available to testify at trial. 

3

 The trial attendance of these witnesses is supported by the reasons set forth by plaintiff in the 

following briefing: Adams (ECF No. 12 at 9-10, 40, ECF No. 95 at 5-7); Patterson (ECF No. 12 

at 39, ECF No. 95 at 5-7); Santoro (ECF No. 12 at 41, ECF No. 95 at 9-11); Alford (ECF No. 12 

at 8, 19). 

Case 2:15-cv-02266-DAD-AC Document 96 Filed 03/16/20 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 

 III. Witnesses to “Similar Instances” 

 In his pretrial statement, plaintiff designated five additional witnesses as “victims of 

similar instances” who could testify about similar patterns of alleged misconduct by correctional 

staff. ECF No. 78 at 10-2. Two of these witnesses are not listed in CDCR’s Inmate Locator 

website and therefore presumed unavailable, at least by writ: Reid (first name unknown) (CDCR 

# C12848), and Cory Mitchell (CDCR # Unknown). 

 Of the remaining three witnesses, plaintiff has set forth their anticipated testimony as 

follows: 

 • Kenyon Lee McClelland (CDCR # T19229): On an unspecified date, McClelland 

informed unidentified HDSP officers that other inmates were threatening him on the yard, but the 

officers failed to protect McClelland when he was required to go back on the yard where he was 

attacked. ECF No. 78 at 11; ECF No. 95 at 7. Plaintiff avers that McClelland’s offer to testify 

voluntarily was made in 2015. ECF No. 95 at 7. 

 • Easter (aka Ester) Burnett (CDCR #V35245): On April 14, 2013, Burnett was 

“approached by another prisoner who attempted to get him to forego a CDCR 602 complaint at 

the behest of officer(s) at HDSP.” ECF No. 95 at 3; see also id. at 1-3; ECF No. 78 at 11; ECF 

No. 95 at 1-5. Plaintiff avers that Burnett’s offer to testify voluntarily was made in February 

2014, prior to the incident at issue in this case. ECF No. 95 at 3. 

 • Ramon Guillermo Morales-Smith (CDCR # F21867): On an unspecified date prior to 

the incident at issue in this case, Morales-Smith informed defendant Haas of a conflict with his 

cellmate but Haas failed to intervene. ECF No. 95 at 9. Plaintiff initially averred that Haas’ 

conduct toward Morales-Smith was consistent with “his reasoning for wishing to see plaintiff 

injured, i.e. complaints filed against him,” ECF No. 78 at 11-2, but this allegation is not repeated 

in plaintiff’s most recent filing. ECF No. 95 at 9. Plaintiff avers that Morales-Smith’s offer to 

testify voluntarily was made in April 2015. ECF No. 95 at 3. 

 A district court’s decision whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is 

premised on a threshold determination whether the proffered testimony is relevant to the issues in 

the case. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable 

Case 2:15-cv-02266-DAD-AC Document 96 Filed 03/16/20 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 

than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 

action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Stated differently, the court must assess “‘whether the prisoner’s 

presence will substantially further the resolution of the case.’” Wiggins v. Alameda County, 717 

F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977)). 

 The undersigned finds the anticipated testimony of witnesses McClelland, Burnett and 

Morales-Smith irrelevant to the issues in this case. McClelland’s proffered testimony, while it 

involves HDSP, is nonspecific as to date and the officers involved. Burnett’s proffered testimony 

does not involve an attack by another inmate but alleged pressure, on behalf of an unidentified 

HDSP correctional officer, to drop an inmate complaint, and this interaction occurred more than a 

year before the incident in this case. The anticipated testimony of Morales-Smith was initially 

presented as analogous to the facts of the instant case, viz, that defendant Haas failed to protect 

both Morales-Smith and plaintiff because they had filed inmate complaints against him. ECF No. 

78 at 11-2. However, in his subsequent statement, plaintiff generally avers only that Haas “well 

knew that the risk [of inmate assault] was there and regularly affected in HDSP and the prison 

system.” ECF No. 95 at 9. The undersigned finds the anticipated testimony of these witnesses 

has no probative value as to the factual disputes in this case. 

 The court notes that plaintiff’s recent pretrial filings have repeatedly asserted that 

defendant Haas’ failure to protect him was in retaliation for plaintiff filing an inmate appeal 

against Haas. Plaintiff does not need to prove a retaliatory motive (or any motive) in order to 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation. No freestanding First Amendment retaliation claim is 

going to trial; none was presented in the complaint. Accordingly, any testimony from Burnett or 

Morales-Smith going to retaliation is irrelevant. 

 For these reasons, this court declines to issue any writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum 

for the trial attendance of plaintiff’s witnesses identified as “victims of similar instances.” 

 IV. Motion to Amend Pretrial Order 

 Finally, plaintiff moves to amend the Pretrial Order for the purpose of adding an 

additional witness, specifically, Timothy Bradford Cole (CDCR # V18610). ECF No. 88. 

Plaintiff informs the court that Cole agreed to testify in this action when the two met at CSP-COR 

Case 2:15-cv-02266-DAD-AC Document 96 Filed 03/16/20 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 

in February 2020. Id., see also ECF No. 94. Cole is another proposed “victim of similar 

instance.” Plaintiff avers that Cole would testify that while he was incarcerated at R.J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (RJD), he submitted an inmate appeal against a correctional officer who 

orchestrated an incident in which inmates confronted Cole about the appeal and then attacked 

him. ECF No. 88 at 2. Plaintiff contends that this incident demonstrates “[t]he pattern of conduct 

that led to my injuries” and is “so similar that it becomes relevant” to the instant case. Plaintiff 

opines that jurors would infer that this pattern of conduct within CDCR demonstrates defendants 

in the instant case “must have known I would be at risk of injury when they forced me to exit the 

housing unit under threat of being reprimanded if I did not.” Id. at 3. 

 The undersigned finds this proffered testimony irrelevant to the facts of the instant case. 

Cole’s anticipated testimony involves an unidentified correctional officer at a prison other than 

HDSP. Moreover, plaintiff’s contention that the allegedly retaliatory conduct against Cole 

mirrors that by Haas against plaintiff is irrelevant for the reasons previously stated. Because the 

court finds Cole an inappropriate witness in this case, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to 

amend the Pretrial Order to add him as a witness. 

 V. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum to obtain the 

trial attendance of his designated incarcerated witnesses, ECF No. 87, is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART. 

 2. Writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue contemporaneously with this order 

for the trial attendance of witnesses Patterson, Santoro, Alford and Adams. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Pretrial Order to name an additional incarcerated 

witness, ECF No. 88, is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 13, 2020 

Case 2:15-cv-02266-DAD-AC Document 96 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 5