Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 229

ORDER Denying 219 Plaintiff's Motion for Order Directing Defendants to Provide Current Location of Inmate Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
PROVIDE CURRENT LOCATION OF INMATE
WITNESSES
(ECF No. 219)

18
I.
19
20

Background

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against

21
Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of excessive force in violation
22
of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in violation of the
23
Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for assault and
24
battery in violation of state law. A jury trial is scheduled for March 10, 2015.
25
On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing Defendants to
26
provide him with the current location of inmate witnesses. Plaintiff asserts that the addresses are
27
28
1

1

necessary to prepare a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses as outlined in the Court’s

2

Second Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 219.)

3

On November 13, 2014, the Court directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s request.

4

(ECF No. 224.) On December 8, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to the request. (ECF No.

5

228.) Plaintiff did not reply. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

6

II.

Discussion

7

On August 12, 2014, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order. The order detailed the

8

procedures for obtaining the attendance of incarcerated witnesses who agree to testify voluntarily and

9

for those who refuse to testify voluntarily. According to the procedures, if Plaintiff intends to have

10

incarcerated witnesses testify at trial, then he must file a motion that includes the name, address and

11

prison identification number of each witness, along with information regarding the prospective

12

witness’ actual knowledge of relevant facts at issue in this matter. Motions for the attendance of

13

incarcerated witnesses must be filed on or before January 5, 2015. (ECF No. 213, pp. 2-3.)

14

On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed his request for an order directing Defendant to provide

15

the current location of inmate witnesses. Plaintiff explains that he has been transferred five times

16

since the incident at issue in 2007 and he does not have any contact with his witnesses. Plaintiff

17

reports that in order to prepare the necessary motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses he

18

needs addresses for the following inmates: (1) Richard A. Holcomb, T-41584; (2) Pierr Davey, D-

19

20396; (3) Lara, D-98607; (4) Lamonte E. Rencher, D-97733; (5) Barry Lamon, E-08345; (6) Ivory C.

20

Taylor, C-05457; (7) S. Mitchell, T-14082; (8) Raul Garcia, Jr., T.88303; (9) Hugo Vergara, p-18218;

21

(10) Larry Alexander, K-61435; and (11) K. Malbrue, P-89050. (ECF No. 219.)

22

On December 8, 2014, Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the information Plaintiff

23

seeks is equally available to him as it is public information on the California Department of

24

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) website. Defendants point out that Plaintiff is not proceeding

25

in forma pauperis in this action and he could afford to hire someone to research the location of his

26

potential witnesses or have a family member do the research. Defendants also contend that they have

27

no legal obligation to search for Plaintiff’s witnesses or to provide Plaintiff with their current

28

locations. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not shown that these potential witnesses
2

1

have any relevant information to offer at trial. As a final matter, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has

2

not obtained permission to correspond with these inmates so the request for information is worthless.

3

(ECF No. 228.)

4

Although the Court’s Second Scheduling Order directed Plaintiff to provide the addresses of

5

any potential incarcerated witnesses, Plaintiff need only provide the last known location of these

6

witnesses. More importantly, in any motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, Plaintiff

7

must demonstrate that the prospective witness has actual knowledge of the relevant facts. In the event

8

such a motion is granted, the Court will secure the necessary addresses for the issuance of any writ of

9

habeas corpus ad testificandum.

10

III.

11

For the reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing Defendants to provide him with the

12

Conclusion and Order

current location of inmate witnesses is HEREBY DENIED.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 19, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3