Sutherland v. Yates et al
Filing
82
ORDER DENYING 74 Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Jericoff for Witness Tampering, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/7/2013. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC
WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
JERICOFF FOR WITNESS TAMPERING
(Doc. 74.)
vs.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
William Sutherland ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
20
commencing this action on December 11, 2009. (Doc. 1.)
21
First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2010, against defendants C/O A.
22
Fernando and C/O M. Jericoff for use of excessive force; against defendant Warden James
23
Yates for failure to protect Plaintiff; and on Plaintiff's related state claims. (Doc. 15.)
This action now proceeds on the
24
On September 8, 2011, the court issued a scheduling order establishing pretrial
25
deadlines including a deadline of May 8, 2012 for the completion of discovery, and a deadline
26
of July 19, 2012 for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 27.) These deadlines
27
have now expired. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed with leave of court on
28
August 17, 2012, is pending. (Doc. 49.)
1
1
On March 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to impose sanctions upon
2
defendant Jericoff for witness tampering. (Doc. 74.) On April 10, 2013, Defendants filed an
3
opposition. (Doc. 75.) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is now before the court.
4
II.
5
WITNESS TAMPERING – CAL.PENAL CODE § 137 AND 18 U.S.C. § 1512
A.
6
Legal Standards
1.
California Penal Code § 137
7
California Penal Code § 137 provides that every person who attempts to influence
8
testimony by a witness pertaining to a crime, by bribery, force, threat of force, or use of fraud,
9
or who knowingly induces another person to give false testimony to, or withhold true testimony
10
from a law enforcement official, pertaining to a crime, is guilty of a felony or misdemeanor.
11
Cal.Penal Code § 137 (emphasis added).
12
2.
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1)
13
Section 1512(b)(1) provides that “[w]hoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or
14
corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct
15
toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in
16
an official proceeding shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or
17
both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s Motion
18
B.
19
Plaintiff argues that under California Penal Code § 137 and 18 U.S.C. § 1512, defendant
20
Jericoff is subject to sanctions in this action by the court for witness tampering. Plaintiff
21
asserts that on or about December 23, 2012, while he was standing in the medication line at the
22
prison, another inmate, Hodgens, approached Plaintiff and informed him that he [Hodgens]
23
could no longer fill out a declaration as to what he saw on or about October 6, 2008, when he
24
[Hodgens] saw two Hispanic inmates being extracted from their cell, and saw the part played
25
by defendant Jericoff in the cell extraction. Plaintiff asserts that Hodgens told Plaintiff that he
26
could no longer be a part of Plaintiff’s action because defendant Jericoff helped him [Hodgens]
27
out by lying at Hodgens’ 115 [disciplinary] hearing. Plaintiff had provided Hodgens’ name to
28
defense counsel in this action, informing counsel that Hodgens would be writing a declaration
2
1
about events he witnessed concerning defendant Jericoff. Plaintiff asserts that the Deputy
2
Attorney General promised Plaintiff that she would keep the names of witnesses from the
3
officers if she could, as Plaintiff was fearful of what might happen. Plaintiff argues that
4
defendant Jericoff’s actions severely damaged Plaintiff’s case and caused the Magistrate Judge
5
to deny Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum filed on December 10, 2012.
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff also argues that defendants failed to comply with the court’s discovery order of
September 14, 2012.
Plaintiff requests sanctions and an investigation into charges against defendant Jericoff
for witness tampering or obstructing justice.
Defendants’ Opposition
10
C.
11
Defendants argue that 18 U.S.C. § 1512, under which criminal charges can be brought
12
for persuasion of a witness with intent to prevent testimony in an official proceeding, does not
13
provide for civil or monetary sanctions. Defendants also argue that California Penal Code §
14
137, which applies to “material information pertaining to a crime” is inapplicable to this civil
15
action which proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.
16
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and improper because it is a
17
motion to compel defendants’ compliance with the September 14, 2012 order requiring that
18
they produce certain documents, and discovery is now closed.
19
20
Lastly, Defendants provide evidence that defendant Jericoff has not engaged in any
improper conduct. (Declaration of M. Jericoff, Doc. 75-1.)
21
D.
22
Plaintiff’s argument that defendants failed to comply with the discovery order of
23
September 14, 2012, shall not be considered here. This issue is not relevant to the instant
24
motion for sanctions, and Plaintiff’s pending Rule 37 motion, filed on September 6, 2013,
25
addresses this issue at great length. (Doc. 78.)
Discussion
26
Defendants’ arguments that 18 U.S.C. § 1915 and California Penal Code § 137 are not
27
applicable to Plaintiff’s motion have merit. Plaintiff’s reliance on federal and state statutes
28
pertaining to criminal prosecution for witness tampering is misplaced. These criminal statutes
3
1
cannot be used to impose sanctions in a § 1983 civil rights action such as Plaintiff’s.
2
Moreover, the Court is not authorized to initiate the investigative proceeding sought by
3
Plaintiff. Such investigations are properly conducted by law enforcement agencies, not by the
4
courts. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.
5
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the court
6
7
to impose sanctions against defendant Jericoff for witness tampering is DENIED.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
12
13
14
October 7, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?