Johnson v. Gonzalez et al
Filing
138
ORDER GRANTING 127 Plaintiff's Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/4/2015. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY JOHNSON,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED
WITNESSES
(ECF No. 127)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Gonzales (sued as
L. Gonzalez) and Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault following the takedown by Defendant
Gonzales on June 9, 2008. A jury trial is set for April 28, 2015.
On November 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of the following
incarcerated witnesses at trial: (1) Mario Richard Madrid (AP-3673); and (2) Hayward L. Mayhan (P60322, California State Prison, Corcoran). (ECF No. 127.) Defendants did not file an opposition.
I.
Legal Standard
In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses,
the Court considers the following factors: (1) whether the inmate’s presence will substantially further
the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks presented by the inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of
1
1
transportation and security, and (4) whether the suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without
2
prejudice to the cause asserted. Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir.
3
1983); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court did not abuse its
4
discretion when it concluded the inconvenience and expense of transporting inmate witness
5
outweighed any benefit he could provide where the importance of the witness’s testimony could not be
6
determined), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
7
II.
Discussion
Inmate Madrid
8
9
Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that Inmate Madrid was an eye witness to two
10
correctional officers swinging their arms as if punching an inmate who was lying on the ground.
11
Inmate Madrid reportedly told Plaintiff that he would testify if Plaintiff pursued a lawsuit. (ECF No.
12
127, pp. 3-4.)
13
Inmate Madrid appears to be an eye witness to events at issue in this action. As such, Inmate
14
Madrid’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case. There is no indication that
15
there would be extraordinary security risks presented by Inmate Madrid’s presence at trial.
16
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate Madrid at trial shall be granted.
Inmate Mayhan
17
18
In support of the motion, Plaintiff submits the declaration if Inmate Mayhan. Inmate Mayhan
19
declares under penalty of perjury that on June 9, 2008, he witnessed a correctional officer grab and
20
slam a handcuffed prisoner to the ground. Once the prisoner was on the ground, two correctional
21
officers attacked him with various punches. Given the distance, Inmate Mayhan did not recognize the
22
correctional officers or prisoner. Inmate Mayhan later found out the prisoner was Plaintiff Johnson
23
and one of the correctional officers was Gonzales. (ECF No. 127, pp. 6-7, Declaration of Hayward L.
24
Mayhan.) Inmate Mayhan reportedly told Plaintiff that he would testify if called upon to do so. (ECF
25
No. 127, p. 4.)
26
27
Inmate Mayhan appears to be an eye witness to the events at issue in this action, and his
presence at trial will substantially further the resolution of the case. There is no indication that there
28
2
1
would be any extraordinary security risks presented by Inmate Mayhan’s presence at trial.
2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of Inmate Mayhan at trial shall be granted.
3
III.
4
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of Inmates Madrid and Mayhan is
5
Conclusion and Order
HEREBY GRANTED.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 4, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?