Hernandez v. Hernandez et al

Filing 155

ORDER Denying 150 Request for Reimbursement of Witness Fees, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/22/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01625-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WITNESS FEES

v.
(ECF No. 150)
M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded against

18

Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s Eighth

19

Amendment excessive force claim. Trial was set for August 11, 2015, but was taken off

20

calendar pursuant to the parties’ notice of settlement. (ECF No. 146.) The parties’

21

eventually filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice and the matter was closed.

22

(ECF No. 151.)

23

Prior to trial, Plaintiff submitted money orders for witness fees payable to

24

Correctional Captain A. Walker and Associate Warden D. Fischer to secure their

25

appearance at trial. (ECF No. 105.) Both officers were employed at Pleasant Valley

26

State Prison (“PVSP”). Both officers were served with the money orders, along with

27

subpoenas, through correctional officials. (ECF Nos. 148, 149.)

28

1

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 26, 2015 request that the money orders be

2

returned to him. (ECF No. 150.) On March 25, 2016, the Court ordered defense

3

counsel to advise the Court of the whereabouts of the money orders or funds. (ECF

4

No. 153.) Defense counsel responded on April 14, 2016, providing evidence that the

5

money orders had been returned to the United States Marshals Service on September

6

29, 2015. (ECF No. 154.) The Marshals Service has informed the Court that the money

7

orders were returned on September 30, 2015 to Esperanza Hernandez, 1589 E. 48th

8

Place, Los Angeles, CA 90011.

9

Because the money orders have been returned to the person who procured

10

them for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement is moot and is therefore

11

HEREBY DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 22, 2016

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2