McCoy v. Holguin et al

Filing 240

ORDER GRANTING 238 Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witness and Setting Deadlines and Fees for Nonincarcerated Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 11/22/2024. Witness fees due 12/23/2024. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
A. HOLGUIN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK (PC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED
WITNESS AND SETTING DEADLINES
AND FEES FOR NONINCARCERATED
WITNESSES
(Doc. Nos. 238, 239)

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lakeith L. McCoy’s Motion for Attendance of

18

Incarcerated Witness, filed November 7, 2024. (Doc. No. 238). Defendants did not file any

19

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and the time to do so has expired. (Doc. No. 237 at 4); see also

20

docket. On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff also filed a Witness List for his trial, currently scheduled

21

for February 25, 2025 before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. (Doc. No. 239). For the reasons set

22

forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion and sets deadlines and fees for Plaintiff to secure

23

the attendance of non-incarcerated witnesses.

24

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED WITNESS

25

In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated

26

witnesses, the Court considers the following factors: (1) whether the inmate’s presence will

27

substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks presented by the inmate’s

28

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

1

until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause asserted. Wiggins v. County of

2

Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422

3

(9th Cir. 1994) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the

4

inconvenience and expense of transporting inmate witness outweighed any benefit he could

5

provide where the importance of the witness’s testimony could not be determined), abrogated on

6

other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

7

Plaintiff’s Motion identifies a single incarcerated witness that he wishes to produce at

8

trial, Joshua Howard, CDCR No. T47638, currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison.

9

(Doc. No. 238 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that Howard has first-hand knowledge of the incident on

10

March 12, 2015, when Plaintiff alleges Defendants subjected him to excessive use of force or

11

failed to intervene in their colleagues’ excessive use of force. (Id. at 2). In particular, Plaintiff

12

states that Howard was in the medical unit when Plaintiff was escorted there by Defendant

13

Montanez and will testify, inter alia, that Montanez was involved in the March 12, 2015

14

incident—contrary to his claims—and that Plaintiff looked like he had just been severely beaten.

15

(Id. at 3). Plaintiff provides a declaration from Inmate Howard attesting to these and other facts.

16

(Id. at 7-8).

17

The Court finds this proposed testimony will substantially further the resolution of the

18

case by potentially impeaching the statements of one of the Defendants; it will also provide

19

eyewitness testimony as to Plaintiff’s injuries and the involvement of Defendant Montanez in the

20

events of March 12, 2015. Defendants have not submitted any opposition suggesting that Inmate

21

Howard’s presence will pose a security risk if brought to court nor that costs of transferring him

22

to Court are substantial. Howard is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, roughly 80

23

miles from the U.S. District Court in Fresno, thus the transportation involved in transferring

24

Plaintiff is significant but not obviously prohibitive. Moreover, Plaintiff indicates that Howard

25

prefers to testify remotely (Doc. No. 238 at 5 ¶ 5), a request that the undersigned will not rule on

26

at this time but which would, if granted, obviate any security or cost concerns.1 Turning to the

27
1

28

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a), the Court may permit testimony in open court by
contemporaneous video transmission “[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate

2

1

fourth County of Alameda factor, information obtained from CDCR’s inmate locator website

2

indicates that Inmate Howard will not become eligible for parole consideration until April 2034,

3

thus a stay of the action until Howard is released would unreasonably delay this already stale

4

case. Based on the analysis above, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s Motion and

5

permit Inmate Howard to testify at trial.

6

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTED NONINCARCERATED WITNESSES

7

Plaintiff lists six non-incarcerated witnesses he wishes to subpoena for trial. (Doc. No.

8

239). As the Court previously advised Plaintiff, because he is no longer proceeding in forma

9

pauperis he is not entitled to service of the subpoenas by the United States Marshals Service.

10

(See Doc. No. 61); 28 U.S.C. § 1915d; 28 U.S.C. 566(c).

11

As the Court also previously advised Plaintiff, several of his non-incarcerated witnesses

12

appear to be located more than 100 miles from the location set for trial. (See Doc. No. 239).

13

Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a witness who resides more than 100

14

miles from the location set for trial is beyond the court’s subpoena power unless:

15
16
17

[the location for trial is] within the state where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person, [and] . . . the
person (i) is a party or party’s officer; or (ii) is commanded to
attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B); see also Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC, 2022 WL 867265, at *3

18

(D. Nev. Mar. 23, 2022) (noting that “federal courts can compel a witness to testify” if the

19
conditions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B) are met). Accordingly, provided Plaintiff submits
20
witness fees sufficient to defray the expenses of these witnesses to attend trial, including
21
overnight lodging, the Court will issue subpoenas for their attendance, which Plaintiff will then
22
be required to serve.
23
24

The Court notes that two of Plaintiff’s non-incarcerated witnesses, J. Jones and Rachel
DeLuna are also included in Defendants’ most recent witness list. (See Doc. No. 116 at 4-5). If

25
26
27
28

safeguards[.]” See Barnett v. Gamboa, 2015 WL 13215676, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (granting
defendants’ request that two incarcerated witnesses located 400 miles from the courthouse be permitted to
testify remotely due to the “significant expenses regarding transportation and substantial security concerns
for transferring these inmates witnesses to court”). The Parties may wish to address this issue at the
Pretrial Conference with the District Judge.

3

1

Defendants include those two individuals on their witness list, which is due to be submitted with

2

Defendants’ amended pretrial statement on November 25, 2024, the Court will not require

3

Plaintiff to issue subpoenas or pay witness fees for those witnesses. Thus, Plaintiff should review

4

Defendants’ Pretrial Statement before submitting any witness fees for DeLuna and Jones.

5
6

The estimated cost for each witness (including DeLuna and Jones, in the event
Defendants’ do not intend to bring them to trial) is indicated below:

7

Name
Dr. Steven Yaplee
J. Gutierrez5
Rachel DeLuna
J. Jones
J. Gutierrez
L. Cardenas

8
9
10

Location
Bakersfield, CA4
Tehachapi, CA
Tehachapi, CA
Tehachapi, CA
Tehachapi, CA
Tehachapi, CA

Daily Witness Fee
$40.00
$40.00
$40.00
$40.00
$40.00
$40.00

Per diem2
$193.50
$193.50
$193.50
$193.50
$193.50
$193.50

Transportation3
$147.40
$210.38
$210.38
$210.38
$210.38
$210.38

Total
$380.90
$443.88
$443.88
$443.88
$443.88
$443.88

11

For any witness which Plaintiff wishes to subpoena for trial, he must submit to the Court, no later

12

than December 23, 2024, a money order in the amount indicated above made payable to the

13

witness. The Court will then issue a subpoena to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is responsible for

14

serving on the witness in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

16

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witness (Doc. No. 238) is
GRANTED. The undersigned reserves the question of whether Inmate Howard will

17
18
2

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Includes standard daily lodging rate of $129.00 for Fresno, CA plus first/last day Meals and Incidentals
of $64.50. Total meals and incidentals for subsequent days is $86.00. U.S. General Services
Administration, Per diem rates, https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates (last visited
November 21, 2024).
3
Travel costs are based on round-trip mileage at the current reimbursement rate. 28 U.S.C. § 1821. As of
January 1, 2024, the mileage reimbursement rate for a privately owned vehicle is $0.67 per mile. U.S.
General Services Administration, Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates,
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileagerates (last visited November 21, 2024).
4
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Dr. Yaplee’s address in Bakersfield is approximately 110
miles from the U.S. District Courthouse in Fresno and California Correctional Institution is approximately
157 miles from the Courthouse. Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of
facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they are either “generally known within the trial
court's territorial jurisdiction,” or they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Id.; see also National Agricultural
Chemicals Assn. v. Rominger, 500 F.Supp. 465, 472 (E.D. Cal. 1980). The Court may take judicial notice
on its own or at the request of any party. Id. 201(c).
5
Plaintiff identifies two witnesses named J. Gutierrez, one a former correctional officer, the other a former
associate warden. Both are listed as located at California Correctional Institution.

4

1

testify at trial in person or via videoconference.

2

2. The Court will issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure the attendance

3

of Inmate Howard.

4

3. No later than December 23, 2024, Plaintiff shall deliver to the Court the appropriate

5

witness fees, identified in this Order, for any nonincarcerated witnesses he intends to

6

call at trial. Plaintiff is advised the Court cannot accept cash, and money orders

7

should not be made payable to the Court but be made payable to the individual

8

witness in that witness’s name.

9
10

Dated:

November 22, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5