Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 77

ORDER RE-SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/11/2017. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/3/2017 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE-SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING v. 14 WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., 15 16 CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS (PC) Date: November 3, 2017 Time: 10:30 a.m. Courtroom 6 (MJS) Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants 19 Salvatore and John Doe 1 on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. 20 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to 21 exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 43.) On March 17, 2017, the District Court 22 adopted the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations and denied the motion, but 23 referred the case back to the undersigned for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of 24 exhaustion. (ECF No. 69.) An evidentiary hearing was set for June 23, 2017 (ECF No. 25 70), but vacated to allow the parties to participate in a settlement conference. (ECF No. 26 72.) The settlement conference having failed to resolve the case (ECF No. 76), the Court 27 now re-sets the evidentiary hearing: 28 1 An evidentiary hearing will be held before the Honorable Michael J. Seng, United 2 States Magistrate Judge, on November 3, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6, Seventh 3 Floor, United States District Court, Fresno, California. The hearing will commence and 4 be completed that day, and will be limited to the issue of whether Plaintiff is excused 5 from the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement because administrative 6 remedies were “effectively unavailable” to him. 7 8 9 More specifically, the parties should be prepared to present evidence as to the following:  about Defendants’ alleged misconduct on April 5 and 6, 2014; 10 11  12 13 Whether Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal on May 5, 2014 complaining Whether prison officials failed to respond to or otherwise process Plaintiff’s May 5, 2014 appeal;  Whether on June 30 and/or July 13, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 14 Form 22 requesting the names of the officers working on April 5 and 6, 15 2014 so that he could list them on his “previously submitted” appeal; 16  17 18 Whether prison officials failed to respond to or otherwise process Plaintiff’s CDCR Forms 22;  Whether Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal on April 15, 2016 19 complaining about prison officials’ failure to respond to the May 5, 2014 20 appeal; and 21 22  Whether Plaintiff had a reasonable, good faith belief that the administrative appeals process was effectively unavailable to him. 23 In preparation for the hearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than 24 October 2, 2017, the parties confer regarding the witnesses to be called and evidence to 25 be presented at the hearing. Plaintiff and Defendants shall submit the original and five 26 copies of all hearing exhibits, along with exhibit and witness lists, to Judge Seng’s 27 chambers in Fresno no later than October 18, 2017. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre- 28 marked with numbers preceded by the designation “P-___” (e.g., P-1, P-2). Defendants’ 2 1 exhibits shall be pre-marked with letters preceded by the designation “D-___” (e.g. D-A, 2 D-B). 3 The parties are required to agree upon and identify their joint exhibits and 4 witnesses, if any. Joint exhibits must be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the 5 designation “J-__” (e.g., J-1, J-2), and the parties should decide amongst themselves 6 which party shall submit the original and five copies of the joint trial exhibits, with exhibit 7 lists, to the Court no later than October 18, 2017. 8 Absent written objections filed by October 18, 2017, and/or further Order of this 9 court, all institutional records and other documents may be authenticated by the 10 propounding party making a prima facie showing of authenticity and presenting 11 documents which reflect that authenticity. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4); United States v. Tank, 12 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2017 /s/ 16 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?