York v. Stewart et al

Filing 143

ORDER DISCHARGING November 9, 2021 139 Order to Show Cause; ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff's 137 Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/16/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD RAY YORK,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISCHARGING NOVEMBER 9,
2021 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(ECF No. 139)

13

v.

14

GARCIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF
INCARCERATED WITNESSES
(ECF No. 137)

17
18

I.

Introduction

19

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

21

claims against Defendant Garcia for excessive use of force and against Defendant Neighbors for

22

failure to protect. This case is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on December 13,

23

2021 and a jury trial commencing March 1, 2022 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

24

Pursuant to the Court’s August 4, 2021 Second Amended Second Scheduling Order,

25

Plaintiff submitted a motion for attendance of two incarcerated witnesses on October 6, 2021.

26

(ECF No. 137, pp. 35–37; 38–41.) On November 9, 2021, the Court issued an order for

27

Defendants to show cause why Plaintiff’s motions should not be granted as unopposed. (ECF

28

No. 139.) Defendants filed a response on November 15, 2021, including a statement of non1

1

opposition and opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF No. 142.) The Court finds a reply brief

2

unnecessary, and Plaintiff’s motions for attendance of incarcerated witnesses are deemed

3

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

4

II.

5

Motions for Incarcerated Witnesses
In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of incarcerated

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

A.

Inmate Michael Washington

16

Plaintiff declares that, on or about July 2015 at Kern Valley State Prison, Inmate Michael

17

Washington (CDCR #V39680, High Desert State Prison) agreed to testify at Plaintiff’s trial if

18

called as a witness. (ECF No. 137, p. 38.) On November 10, 2019, Plaintiff was again informed

19

at California State Prison – Corcoran that Inmate Washington was willing to testify if called as a

20

witness. (Id.)

21

Plaintiff further declares that on January 18, 2014, Inmate Washington was housed at

22

Kern Valley State Prison Facility B Building 8, section B, and was Plaintiff’s cellmate at the time

23

of the incident. (Id. at 39.) If called as a witness, Inmate Washington would testify that he

24

witnessed Defendant Garcia place Plaintiff on his back, take out his O.C. Pepper Spray from his

25

side holster, and place the can in Plaintiff’s face and begin to spray him. Inmate Washington

26

would also testify that Defendant Garcia came back into the cell after placing Plaintiff into a

27

choke hold and dragging him out of the cell and spraying him in the face with O.C. pepper spray,

28

and used his O.C. pepper spray against his person by spraying him in the face while he sat on the
2

1

toilet in restraints. Inmate Washington will testify that he witnessed Defendant Neighbors in the

2

section at the time of the incident. (Id.)
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to call Inmate Washington, assuming there

3
4

are proper court orders allowing for his transport, and the presence of correctional officers

5

nearby. (ECF No. 142, p. 1.)

6

Based on the presentation of the facts that will be testified to by Inmate Washington, the

7

Court finds that this witness may be an eye and/or ear witness in this action, and that it does not

8

appear his testimony will result in undue delay, a waste of time, or the needless presentation of

9

cumulative evidence. Plaintiff declared that this witness informed Plaintiff of his knowledge of

10

the events he described, and was previously willing to testify regarding his knowledge. Plaintiff’s

11

motion for the attendance of Inmate Washington is therefore granted. The Court will issue the

12

necessary transportation order for this witness’s appearance at trial in due course.

13

B.

14

Plaintiff declares that on November 10, 2019, Plaintiff talked to Inmate Wallace W.

15

Vaughn (CDCR #T94462, California State Prison – Calipatria) at California State Prison –

16

Corcoran, in which he agreed to testify at Plaintiff’s trial if called as a witness. (ECF No. 137, p.

17

35.)

18

Inmate Wallace W. Vaughn

Plaintiff further declares that on January 18, 2014, Inmate Vaughn was housed at Kern

19

Valley State Prison, Facility B Building 8 Section B, the same location where the incident took

20

place in this case. (Id.) Inmate Vaughn will testify that on January 18, 2014 he witnessed

21

Defendants Garcia and Neighbors leaving building 8 Section B after the search of the building

22

section, and return back to the section about 10 to 20 minutes later and went to the far end cell in

23

the section. Inmate Vaughn will testify that he witnessed Defendants Garcia and Neighbors

24

walking behind Plaintiff and his cellmate Inmate Washington as they were being escorted out of

25

the section. Inmate Vaughn’s testimony will support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Garcia and

26

Neighbors were in Facility B Building 8 Section B on January 18, 2014 at the time of the

27

incident. (Id. at 36.)

28

///
3

Defendants object to the proffer of Inmate Vaughn’s testimony as to the events of January

1
2

18, 2014, on the basis that it will be cumulative, waste time, and potentially confuse or mislead

3

the jury. (ECF No. 142.) Further, Defendants argue that Inmate Vaughn’s testimony lacks

4

sufficient indicia of reliability because a prior declaration by Inmate Vaughn produced by the

5

Plaintiff evinces that Inmate Vaughn lacks sufficient personal knowledge to testify about the

6

material facts in the matter, namely the pepper-spraying incident of which Plaintiff complains.

7

(See ECF No. 142-2, p. 2.) As shown by Inmate Vaughn’s declaration, Inmate Vaughn claims

8

only that he was in Facility B on January 18, 2014 at Kern Valley State Prison at the time of the

9

incident, and can testify about what he saw prior to and after the incident in question. However,

10

Defendants argue that these portions of events are not largely in dispute, and it is unlikely that

11

Inmate Vaughn’s testimony will be helpful to the jury. (ECF No. 142, p. 2.) Finally, Defendants

12

argue that there is an issue of safety with the prospective transportation of Inmate Vaughn, who

13

has questionable utility to the jury, because he was recently issued and then re-issued a pending

14

prison rule violation, and in each is accused of threatening CDCR staff. (Id.)

15

Based on the presentation of the facts that will be testified to by Inmate Vaughn, the Court

16

finds that this witness is not an eye and/or ear witness to the events at issue in this action, and it

17

appears that his testimony would result in undue delay, a waste of time, or the needless

18

presentation of cumulative evidence. Based on Plaintiff’s declaration and Inmate Vaughn’s

19

declaration, Inmate Vaughn has knowledge only of events that occurred prior to and after the

20

pepper-spraying incident at issue, and those events are largely not in dispute. In addition, both

21

Plaintiff and Inmate Washington can testify as to the same information at trial. Plaintiff’s motion

22

for the attendance of Inmate Vaughn is therefore denied.

23

III.

24

Order
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

25

1. The November 9, 2021 order to show cause, (ECF No. 139), is DISCHARGED;

26

2. Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, (ECF No. 137), is GRANTED

27
28

IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
///
4

a. Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of Inmate Michael Washington, (CDCR

1

#T94462, California State Prison – Calipatria), is GRANTED;

2

b. Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of Inmate Wallace W. Vaughn, (CDCR #T94462,

3

California State Prison – Calipatria), is DENIED; and

4
5
6

3. The Court will issue the necessary writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum prior to the trial
in this matter.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 16, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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