Calloway v. Veal et al

Filing 227

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Second 226 Request for Issuance of Witness Subpoenas signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/30/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF
WITNESS SUBPOENAS
(ECF No. 226.)

C/O HAYWARD and

15

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC

C/O OAKS,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Jamisi J. Calloway (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23

commencing this action on December 10, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) This action now proceeds with

24

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on October 5, 2009, against defendants C/O

25

Hayward and C/O Oaks, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the

26

U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 20.)

27

This case is scheduled for jury trial to commence on January 31, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

28

before District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for
1

1

the District Judge to direct the U.S. Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s witness subpoenas for trial.

2

(ECF No. 226.) Plaintiff also requests that defense counsel stipulate to produce all state

3

employees for testimony at trial.1

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

This is Plaintiff’s second request for issuance of witness subpoenas for trial. The court

6

denied Plaintiff’s prior request, filed on January 9, 2017, as untimely, because there was not

7

enough time before trial to serve the subpoenas, and because Plaintiff had not indicated that he

8

was able to pay the witness fees. (ECF No. 215.) The present request shall be denied for the

9

same reasons. Moreover, although Plaintiff indicates that he submitted subpoenas as Exhibit A

10

to his request, there is no Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff’s request, and no subpoenas were

11

received by the court.

12

III.

13
14

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

second request for witness subpoenas, filed on January 27, 2017, is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 30, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff is advised that Defendants are not required to call all of the witnesses they listed.
However, as is the Court’s general practice in cases such as this, witnesses the defense plans to call shall be
present on January 31, 2017, by 9:30 a.m. and shall be available for Plaintiff to call for direct examination.
2