Barnett v. Norman, et al.

Filing 212

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 205 Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Witnesses at Trial signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/12/2012. The Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of this order on Inmates King and Conti with the order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring their production at trial. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TROAS V. BARNETT,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:05-cv–01022-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AT TRIAL

v.
MARTIN GAMBOA, ANGEL DURAN,
and MANUEL TORRES,

(ECF Nos. 205, 210)

13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants

18

Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran and Manuel Torres for the use of excessive force, and Defendant

19

Torres for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment and is currently set for trial on

20

January 22, 2012. Plaintiff filed motions for the attendance of incarcerated witness Phillip Conti,

21

CDCR No. C-86098, Darrell King, CDCR No. J-96720, Tony Bejarano, CDCR No. P-93055, and

22

Sven Johnson, H-37481, at the trial of this matter. (ECF Nos. 148, 150, 151, 152.) During a pretrial

23

conference on October 11, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew the motion for the attendance of Inmate

24

Bejarano, and the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of Inmates Conti,

25

King, and Johnson. Defense counsel was ordered to determine if the witness could be transferred

26

to an institution where they would be available to testify by video conference. (ECF No. 174.)

27

This action was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned on October 12, 2012. (ECF No.

28

176.) On November 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring the production of his
1

1

inmate witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 205.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition on

2

December 11, 2012. (ECF No. 210.)

3

In deciding this motion, the Court has reviewed the motions for the attendance of the

4

incarcerated witnesses and finds that the testimony of these three witnesses is cumulative, as

5

discussed below. Therefore, the motion for the attendance of Inmate Johnson shall be denied.

6

Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmates Conti and King shall be granted.

7

Plaintiff has submitted his signed declarations in support of the motions for the attendance

8

of these witnesses. Plaintiff states that he was housed in cell 206 and Inmate Conti was housed in

9

cell 201 during the incidents at issue in this action. (ECF No. 148 at ¶¶ 2, 4.) Inmate Conti will

10

testify that he observed Defendants Gamboa and Duran enter the housing unit and order Plaintiff to

11

go downstairs. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Inmate Conti observed Defendants Gamboa and Duran enter Plaintiff’s

12

cell and administer a beating of Plaintiff, and Defendant Gamboa pursuing Plaintiff with his baton

13

and pepper spraying Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.) Inmate Conti will testify that Plaintiff assumed a

14

proned out position in front of his cell and to the extent of Plaintiff’s head injury. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.)

15

Inmate Conti also observed the block gun being fired at Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was lying in a pool

16

of blood at the bottom of the stairwell. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 14.) Plaintiff indicates that Inmate Conti is not

17

willing to testify voluntarily. (Id. at ¶ 16.) In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants

18

contend that Inmate Conti has stated he does not know Plaintiff and is not willing to participate in

19

this action in any manner. (Dec. Janine Jeffrey ¶ 6, ECF No. 153-1.)

20

Plaintiff states that Inmate King was housed in cell 208 on the upper tier directly next to the

21

shower. (ECF No. 150 at ¶ 4.) Inmate King will testify to the amount of time that Defendants

22

Gamboa and Duran remained in Plaintiff’s cell. After exiting Plaintiff’s cell, Defendants Gamboa

23

and Duran were directly in front of Inmate King’s cell. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Inmate King observed Defendant

24

Gamboa brandishing his flashlight and Defendant Duran brandishing a baton following the alleged

25

assault on Plaintiff and checking their clothing for blood. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.) Inmate King will testify

26

to the continued use of force and the extent of Plaintiff’s head injury. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 13.) Inmate

27

King will also testify to the delay by Defendant Torres in activating the alarm. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff

28

states that Inmate King is not willing to testify voluntarily. (Id. at ¶ 19.) In their opposition to the
2

1

motion, Defendants contend that Inmate King has stated he does not have any relevant information

2

on the incidents at issue here. (Dec. Janine Jeffery ¶ 5, ECF No. 155-1.)

3

Plaintiff states that Inmate Johnson was his cellmate at the time of the incidents alleged in

4

his complaint and was locked in the upper tier shower during the search of Plaintiff’s cell. (ECF No.

5

152 at ¶ 4.) Inmate Johnson observed Plaintiff being ordered to return to his cell and being pulled

6

into the cell by Defendants Duran and Gamboa, and the amount of time Defendants remained in the

7

cell. Inmate Johnson observed Defendants Duran and Gamboa exit the cell and position themselves

8

in front of cell 208. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Inmate Johnson observed the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at

9

¶ 8.) Inmate Johnson observed the struggle after Plaintiff exited the cell and Defendant Torres delay

10

in activating the housing unit alarm. ((Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Inmate Johnson is not willing to testify

11

voluntarily. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

12

The Court finds that the testimony of these three witnesses is cumulative. Based on the facts

13

set forth in Plaintiff’s declarations, Inmate Johnson is the only inmate who was not in a position to

14

observe the inside of his cell during the incident. Inmate Johnson will testify to the same

15

information provided by Inmates Conti and King. Accordingly, the Court shall deny the motion to

16

produce Inmate Johnson at trial as cumulative. See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302

17

F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (trial courts have wide discretion to limit the presentation of

18

cumulative evidence); Cummings v. Adams, No. CV F 03 5294 DLB, 2006 WL 449095, *3

19

(E.D.Cal. Feb. 12, 2006) (proposed inmate witnesses limited to three of six due to cumulativeness).

20

Plaintiff’s motion for the production of Inmates Conti and King shall be granted. Due to defense

21

counsel’s contention that these inmates are not willing to testify and may not have any information

22

relevant to this action, a copy of this order shall be served upon the witness with the order and writ

23

of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Should the inmates not have any information relevant to this

24

action, they may so notify the Court by submitting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury.

25

Defendants request that the inmates be ordered to be produced on the day in which they will

26

testify in order to reduce the cost of transporting the inmates and the inherent security risks of such

27

transfers. The Court shall order Inmates King and Conti produced on the first day of trial, unless

28

Plaintiff advises differently. The parties are advised that based upon the Court’s experience, jury
3

1

selection is anticipated to be completed in the morning and the presentation of Plaintiff’s witnesses

2

will begin before noon. The Court values the time of the jurors and therefore strives to avoid delays

3

in the presentation of evidence whenever possible. Trial efficiency is critical and the parties will

4

be expected to abide by the schedule set by the Court.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7
8

is DENIED as cumulative;
2.

9
10

Plaintiff’s motion for the production of Inmate Sven Johnson, CDCR No. H-37481,

Plaintiff’s motion for the production of Inmates Darrell King, CDCR No. J-96720,
and Phillip Conti, CDCR No. C-86098, is GRANTED.

3.

The Clerks’ Office is directed to serve a copy of this order on Inmates King and

11

Conti with the order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring their

12

production at trial.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

December 12, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4