Wallace v. Riggs et al

Filing 247

*ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (Doc. 243 ) is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshalls Service shall attempt to serve the following individuals with the corresponding subpoenas attached to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 243 ). - Timothy Jones: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003,- Scott Alfred: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003,- Keith Wagner: 200 W. Washington S t., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003,- Todd Riggs: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003, - Daniel Warren: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003, or, alternatively, 120 S. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034, - Michael Ong: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003 or, alternatively, 120 S. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034, - Nick Calandra: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003 or, alternatively, 1717 E. Grant St., Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85034, - T ara Ridgeway: 1601 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining requests are denied, as stated herein. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 1/25/2022. (LAD) *Modified to add text on 1/26/2022 (LAD).

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Martice Deshawn Wallace,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-04126-PHX-DJH

Timothy A Jones, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Issuance of

16

Subpoenas (Doc. 243).1 Defendants have filed a Response, which does not object to the

17

Motion.

18

I.

Background

19

This case arises from an encounter Plaintiff had with several Phoenix Fire

20

Department firefighters on the night of June 15, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that, after accepting

21

and then declining treatment for some injuries, several firefighters used excessive force on

22

him in violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 50 at 5). The events that gave rise to

23

this case also gave rise to a separate criminal matter where, on September 25, 2018,

24

Plaintiff was convicted of aggravated assault using a deadly weapon or dangerous

25

instrument on two firefighters who have since been dismissed as Defendants from this

26

matter. (Doc. 167 at 8).
A Jury Trial has been set to determine whether Defendants used excessive force on

27
28

1

The Court also notes that Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, has been approved to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. (Doc. 7).

1

Plaintiff. Plaintiff now requests the Court order the U.S. Marshals to serve fifteen

2

witnesses for the Trial. (Doc. 243).

3

II.

Legal Standards

4

Under General Order 18-19, any self-represented litigant wishing to serve a

5

subpoena must file a motion that (1) is in writing, (2) attaches a copies of the proposed

6

subpoenas, (3) sets forth the name and address of the witnesses to be subpoenaed, and (4)

7

states with particularity the reasons for seeking the testimony.

8

Plaintiff requests that the U.S. Marshals Service serve the subpoenas. The Federal

9

Rules permit service by the U.S. Marshals in certain circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

4(c)(3) (requiring service of complaint and process by a U.S. Marshal when plaintiff is

11

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis); 28 U.S.C. 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b) advisory

12

committee note to 1991 amendment (noting that U.S. Marshals may still serve subpoenas).

13

Because personal service of the subpoenas is required, “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to

14

expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.”

15

Jackson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4537746, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018) (quoting Alexander

16

v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010)).

17

Courts must also be vigilant to ensure that non-parties are not burdened with excessive or

18

unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena. See Jackson v. Paramo, 2018 WL

19

4537746, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018).

20
21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas.

Under the Rule, an

individual may only be commanded through a subpoena to attend a trial who is:
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
transacts business in person; or
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
transacts business in person, if the person
(i)
is a party or a party's officer; or
(ii)
is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial
expense.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Fed R. Civ. P. 45(c).

28

///

-2-

1

III.

2
3

Discussion
The Court proceeds by discussing each individual or group of individuals whom

Plaintiff wishes to serve.

4

a. Defendants & City of Phoenix Employees

5

Plaintiff represents that Defendants’ counsel has agreed to accept service for all

6

Defendants and all City of Phoenix employees. (Doc. 239).2 These individuals include

7

Defendants Timothy Jones, Scott Alfred, and Keith Wagner, as well as non-parties Todd

8

Riggs, Daniel Warren, Michael Ong, and Nick Calandra. (Doc. 243 at 2–4). As to these

9

individuals, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. The Court orders the U.S. Marshalls

10

Service to serve Defendant’s counsel, who will accept service for the above-mentioned

11

individuals, at 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

12

b. Tara Ridgeway

13

Next, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the U.S. Marshalls serve Tara

14

Ridgeway, who Plaintiff represents is a psychologist capable of testifying about Plaintiff’s

15

psychology injuries. (Doc. 243 at 4). Plaintiff provides two addresses for Ms. Ridgeway.

16

One address is in Kentucky and the other is in Arizona, at the Arizona Department of

17

Corrections. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to serve Ms. Ridgeway in Arizona

18

under the assumption that she is still an employee of the Arizona Department of

19

Corrections. However, to the extent that Ms. Ridgeway lives in Kentucky and is no longer

20

employed in Arizona or regularly conducts business here, Rule 45 does not permit service

21

on her. Therefore, the Court will order the U.S. Marshalls Service to attempt to serve Tara

22

Ridgeway at the Arizona Department of Corrections, 1601 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ

23

85007.

24

///

25
Defendants state their counsel “will accept service of any issued subpoenas for any named
Defendant.” (Doc. 245 at 2). However, Defendants do not comment on whether their
counsel may accept service on behalf of the non-party City of Phoenix employees. In the
event Defendants counsel is not authorized to accept service for these city of Phoenix
employees, the Court will Order the U.S. Marshalls to serve Todd Riggs, Daniel Warren,
Michael Ong, at 120 S. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034; and to serve Nick Calandra at
1717 E. Grant St., Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85034.
2

26
27
28

-3-

1

c. Chris Farmer

2

Plaintiff requests the U.S. Marshalls serve Chris Farmer with a subpoena. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff claims Mr. Farmer is an “investigator who worked on an unrelated case involving

4

an unlawful seizure and use of excessive force” by the Phoenix Fire Department. (Id. at

5

5). Plaintiff argues this testimony will be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406

6

as evidence of an organization’s habit or routine practice. Plaintiff has previously sought

7

to introduce evidence of other unrelated incidents of excessive force by the Phoenix Fire

8

Department, and those requests have been denied. (Docs. 203; 242).

9

“Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted

10

to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with

11

the habit or routine practice.” Fed. R. Evid. 406. Plaintiff does not allege that Mr. Farmer

12

will be testifying to the particular habits of the individual Defendants in this case.

13

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to show why Mr. Farmer’s testimony would be relevant. See Fed.

14

R. Evid. 403. Furthermore, “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible

15

to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted

16

in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Plaintiff is admonished that

17

he may not mention unrelated incidents involving alleged misconduct by the Phoenix Fire

18

Department or its employees in the trial.

19

Because Plaintiff has not shown how Mr. Farmer’s testimony would be admissible,

20

the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to order the U.S. Marshalls to serve a subpoena on him.

21

d. Armando

22

Plaintiff requests service upon an individual identified only as “Armando (owner of

23

Armando’s Tire Shop).” (Doc. 243 at 5). Plaintiff claims that Armando witnessed the

24

events giving rise to this action. (Id.)

25

It is not clear to the Court that this witness was identified at the final pretrial

26

conference, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to subpoena this individual without

27

prejudice. See United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 841 F.2d 317, 320 (9th Cir. 1988)

28

(“The trial judge may exclude evidence not identified in accordance with the pretrial order

-4-

1

when the party seeking to introduce the evidence offers no justification for delay.”). The

2

parties’ Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order lists an individual by the name of Armando

3

Garcia as a witness who “may” be called to testify about “Use of Force by P.F.D.” (Doc.

4

210 at 7). This description of Mr. Garcia’s testimony differs from other fact witnesses who

5

would be offering a “Version of events.” (Id. at 6). It seems, therefore, that the Armando

6

Plaintiff now seeks to be subpoenaed is different from Armando Garcia. Therefore, the

7

Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice and with leave to refile if Plaintiff can

8

show Armando Garcia is the individual whom he wishes to subpoena.
e. Attorneys Involved in Plaintiff’s Criminal Case

9
10

Plaintiff argues that Defendants “intend to use Plaintiff’s 2018 conviction to bolster

11

their case and prejudice the Plaintiff. . . .” (Doc. 243 at 6). In order to “level the playing

12

field” Plaintiff seeks to serve subpoenas on several attorneys who are alleged to be involved

13

with Plaintiff’s prior criminal conviction. He aims to expose “the means employed by the

14

‘system’ to obtain that conviction . . . .” (Id.) First, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena Jana

15

Sorensen, the prosecutor in the prior criminal case, so to “elicit testimony regarding the

16

means employed to obtain the indictment against him and thereby test the ‘system’ starting

17

from the top.” (Doc. 243 at 6). He also seeks to subpoena Burgess McCowan, Kyle Green,

18

and Amy Bain, who the Court infers to be former counsel for Plaintiff. (Id. at 7–8).

19

Plaintiff seeks their testimony to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.)

20

The testimony Plaintiff seeks to admit from these individuals is not relevant. Both

21

the means by which the prosecutor obtained the criminal conviction and the performance

22

of Plaintiff’s former counsel in the prior criminal matter are not facts of consequence in

23

determining whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Evid.

24

401.

25

As to the introduction of the 2018 conviction into evidence, the Court has yet to rule

26

whether such evidence is indeed admissible. As the Court has previously stated, “evidence

27

of the conviction may be properly used to impeach Plaintiff’s testimony regarding how

28

events unfolded. Moreover, the facts underlying the 2018 aggravated assault conviction

-5-

1

may also be admissible for other purposes, such as to show Plaintiff’s ‘proof of motive,

2

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identify, or absence of mistake or

3

accident.’” (Doc. 197 at 5) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2)). If, at trial, Plaintiff believes

4

evidence is unduly prejudicial, he may move to exclude it pursuant to Federal Rule of

5

Evidence 403.

6

f. Charles Morin

7

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena Charles Morin, “a Phoenix Police commander

8

with the Professional Standards Bureau.” (Doc. 243 at 9). Plaintiff seeks Mr. Morin’s

9

testimony in regards “to the acts and omissions of the arresting officers . . . .” (Id.) Again,

10

this testimony is not relevant to the question of whether Defendants, who are Phoenix

11

firefighters, used excessive force, and it will not be permitted at trial. See Fed. R. Evid.

12

401. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to subpoena Mr. Morin is denied.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas

15

(Doc. 243) is granted in part and denied in part.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshalls Service shall attempt to

17

serve the following individuals with the corresponding subpoenas attached to Plaintiff’s

18

Motion (Doc. 243).

19

-

Timothy Jones: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003

20

-

Scott Alfred: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003

21

-

Keith Wagner: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003

22

-

Todd Riggs: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003

23

-

Daniel Warren: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003, or,

24
25

alternatively, 120 S. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034
-

26
27
28

Michael Ong: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003 or,
alternatively, 120 S. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034

-

Nick Calandra: 200 W. Washington St., Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003 or,
alternatively, 1717 E. Grant St., Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85034

-6-

1

-

2

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining requests are denied, as

3
4

Tara Ridgeway: 1601 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007

stated herein.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2022.

5
6
7
8

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-