Puckett v. Zamora et al

Filing 58

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 48 Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/22/15. GRANTED as to Inmates LaMonte Bencher (#D-97733) and Curley John Broussard (#C-78707). (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,
10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12
13

R. ZAMORA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-00948 DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF
INCARCERATED WITNESSES
[ECF No. 48]

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

16
17
18
19

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 12, 2012. This action for
damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Zamora,
Rodriguez, and Acevedo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United

20

States Constitution, and against Defendants Gutierrez and Six Doe Defendants for failing to

21

intervene to protect Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States

22

Constitution. The events at issue occurred on January 10, 2012, while Plaintiff was housed at

23

Corcoran State Prison.

24

The matter is set for jury trial on June 23, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., before the undersigned.

25

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the attendance of five incarcerated

26
27

witnesses. Defendants did not oppose the motion.
///

28
1

1
2
3
4

DISCUSSION
In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of his proposed
witnesses, factors to be taken into consideration include (1) whether the inmate’s presence will
substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks presented by the inmate’s

5

presence, (3) the expense of transportation and security, and (4) whether the suit can be stayed
6
7
8
9

until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause asserted. Wiggins v. County of
Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422
(9th Cir. 1994) (district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the inconvenience

10

and expense of transporting inmate witness outweighed any benefit he could provide where the

11

importance of the witness’s testimony could not be determined), abrogated on other grounds by

12

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995).

13

Plaintiff seeks the attendance of five incarcerated witnesses: LaMont Shepard (“K-

14

29682), Kevin E. Fields (#P-83425), LaMonte Bencher (#D-97733), Curley John Broussard (#C-

15

78707), and Darnell Lemons (#E-49397).

16
17
18
19

Inmates Shepard and Fields were not eye or ear-witnesses to any of the events at issue.
For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for their attendance is denied.
Plaintiff avers that Inmates Bencher and Broussard were eye and ear-witnesses to the
incident. Plaintiff has submitted Inmate Bencher’s declaration as an exhibit to his motion for

20
21
22
23

summary judgment (ECF No. 32.) According to the declaration, Inmate Bencher states he
witnessed officers slam Plaintiff on the ground in front of the building entrance and begin
punching him in the stomach. Plaintiff states that Inmate Broussard observed the incident and

24

heard Defendant Zamora’s statements during the incident. Plaintiff states that Inmates Bencher

25

and Broussard have informed him that they will testify if called. Because Inmates Bencher and

26

Broussard have personal knowledge of the incident, the Court will allow their testimonies.

27
28
2

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff declares that Inmate Lemons observed Defendants Rodriguez and Zamora “for
days admitting to assaulting me, and observed them harassing and threatening me for filing a
complaint.” (ECF No. 48 at p. 2.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied. First, Inmate Lemons’
observation of Defendants harassing and threatening Plaintiff for filing a complaint is not

5

relevant to any of the claims in this matter. Second, Inmate Lemons was not an eyewitness or
6
7
8
9

ear-witness to the incident. His knowledge stems from statements made apart from the incident
itself. Plaintiff’s declaration concerning Inmate Lemons witnessing of Defendants Rodriguez’s
and Zamora’s admitting to assaulting Plaintiff is too vague and insufficient to show that the

10

witness has actual firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts of the incident. Plaintiff does not

11

specify what was said, when and where it occurred, who was present, and how the witness

12

happened to be in a position to see or hear what occurred. Therefore, the Court will deny

13

Plaintiff’s request for Inmate Lemons’ attendance.

14

ORDER

15

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses is GRANTED as to

16

Inmates LaMonte Bencher (#D-97733), and Curley John Broussard (#C-78707). Plaintiff’s

17
18

motion is DENIED as to Inmates LaMont Shepard (“K-29682), Kevin E. Fields (#P-83425), and
Darnell Lemons (#E-49397).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

April 22, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3