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)

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